Slashdot Mirror
AOL Settles Class Action Suit Over Client Software
An anonymous reader sent in news that AOL is settling a class action suit over their AOL 5.0 software, which usurped people's dial-up networking settings when installed. There's a website for the suit and a
news article about the settlement. Of course, you have to admit you use AOL.
Just claim it is the only ISP you can get in your area, then its OK.
I hate AOL as much as the next guy, but there is no way it screwed up dial up settings as much as Netzero did.
"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
I guess even first posters don't want to admit they use AOL!
I'm torn about AOL. I used to want their complete destruction. But now I want to see them reinstate Netscape in the browser market, and then I want their complete destruction.
Jon: Hi everybody. My name is Jon and I use AOL.
Everybody: Hi Jon!
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
It's about time big companies realize that they can't just take over someone's system because their software is installed. It's not just AOL; programs like Realplayer and Quicktime do this also. Hopefully this settlement will discourage this type of behaviour in the future.
I'll do a lot of things for money...
But admit using AOL isn't one of them.
In The United States District Court For The Southern District Of Florida
IN RE AOL VERSION 5.0 SOFTWARE LITIGATION
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
IF YOU HAVE INSTALLED AOL VERSION 5.0 SOFTWARE ON YOUR COMPUTER,
YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND.
Please read this carefully as it may affect your rights.
AOL Version 5.0 Software (the "5.0 Software") was released to the public in the fall of 1999. Beginning in late January 2000, putative class
action complaints ("Complaints") were filed by consumers against America Online, Inc. and those Complaints alleged that consumers believed that they had
various difficulties with the 5.0 Software. A proposed Settlement of those putative class action lawsuits has been reached. Under the proposed
Settlement, persons who installed the 5.0 Software and file a proof of claim certifying under oath that they experienced difficulties may be eligible to
participate in a $15.5 million Settlement Fund, which fund will also cover the costs of notice to the Settlement class, administrative expenses, any attorneys'
fees and expenses that the Court may award to Plaintiffs' Counsel and any service awards that the Court may award to the participating named plaintiffs,
former named plaintiffs or declarants who have completed their discovery obligations in this action.
The expenses of the Settlement, Attorneys' Fees and Costs awarded to Plaintiffs' Counsel, and Service Awards (if any) will be deducted from
the $15.5 million Settlement Fund. Plaintiffs' Counsel estimate that the costs of providing notice and administering the Settlement will be $1.5 million.
Plaintiffs' Counsel intend to seek attorneys' fees of 30% of the Settlement Fund, ($4.65 million) plus costs not to exceed $1.3 million. Plaintiffs' Counsel will
also seek service awards totaling approximately $50,000. If the Court approves the attorneys' fees and cost application and the service awards,
approximately $8 million will be available to be distributed to the Settlement Class after payment of notice and administrative expenses. As explained in
more detail below, the amount paid on any particular valid claim will depend upon, among other things, the number of valid claims received from Settlement
Class Members and the level of Qualifying Documentation (as explained below) provided.
Plaintiffs conducted extensive discovery relating to the 5.0 Software, conducted depositions and retained experts to review the documentation
regarding the 5.0 Software. After conducting this extensive discovery and after assessing the risks of litigation, Plaintiffs' Counsel believe that the
Settlement described below is fair and equitable to the Class Members. There are basically three sets of allegations: (1) allegations relating to
interoperability and connectivity, (2) allegations relating to the use of default settings, and (3) allegations relating to material instability and other claims.
With respect to interoperability and connectivity, there were public reports after the release of the 5.0 Software that certain AOL members who
have the Microsoft Windows Operating System and the 5.0 Software may have had interoperability and connectivity problems, including but not limited to
alleged difficulties connecting to an Internet Service Provider ("ISP") and/or accessing web pages and e-mail. The parties determined that users of the 5.0
Software with certain older versions of Microsoft's Windows Operating System may have experienced connectivity and interoperability issues, and that
AOL had taken steps to address those issues, including but not limited to offering information on how to upgrade the Microsoft Windows Operating
System.
With respect to the use of default settings, there were allegations that certain AOL members were finding it difficult to access other ISPs
because of certain default settings provided by the Microsoft Windows Operating System and the 5.0 Software. The parties determined that many ISPs
set default settings for consumers, and that AOL was providing information on how to change those default settings.
With respect to material instability, there were also public reports and allegations in the Complaints that the 5.0 Software caused computers to
become materially unstable. Plaintiffs conducted discovery into these issues, and retained experts to assess these allegations. After conducting
discovery and assessing the facts, Plaintiffs now believe that there is little probability of success on certain claims including, but not limited to, matters
regarding these material instability claims. In these circumstances, Plaintiffs' Counsel believes that the proposed Settlement fairly and equitably settles
claims.
Your Options: As described in more detail below, you can do the following with respect to the proposed Settlement:
File a claim by filling out completely the attached Proof Of Claim and sending it to 5.0 Software Settlement, P.O. Box 8859, Melville, New York,
11747- 8859, postmarked on or before September 6, 2002. If you do not submit a claim, you will not share in the Net Settlement Fund, if it is approved.
Do nothing. Choosing to do nothing extinguishes your right to take independent legal action against America Online with respect to the claims
explained in this notice.
Exclude yourself from the Settlement and not participate in the Settlement (if it is approved), by following the instructions set out in Section 4 below.
If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, you may Object to the Settlement by following the instructions set out in Section 6 below.
If you have any questions regarding this notice, please call 1-888-641-4434, or visit the website address at www.50softwareSettlement.com. However,
please read the entire notice before calling or visiting the website. This notice is not an expression by the Court as to the fairness or adequacy of the
Settlement. No inquiries should be directed to the Court.
I. THE SETTLEMENT CLASS
The proposed Settlement Class consists of "All persons in the United States who installed AOL 5.0 on his, her or its computer(s). Excluded from
the Settlement Class are Defendant AOL; any entity in which AOL has a controlling interest; employees, officers or directors of AOL; the legal
2
representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of AOL; and any plaintiff who has dismissed with prejudice his, her or its claims brought against AOL
related to this Action."
II. SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMS
Plaintiffs in this case, and in similar cases that have been consolidated into this action (collectively referred to as "the Action"), claim that the 5.0
Software was deceptively marketed, that the installation of the 5.0 Software made unauthorized changes to their computers, that the 5.0 Software
interfered with their ability to access other ISPs, and that the 5.0 Software corrupted their computer systems. AOL denies strenuously that it has
committed or has attempted to commit any violation of law and AOL specifically denies that it deceptively marketed the 5.0 Software, that the 5.0 Software
makes unauthorized changes to computers, that the 5.0 Software interferes with the ability of users to access other ISPs or that the 5.0 Software
corrupts computer systems. AOL believes that the 5.0 Software is a reliable software program that has made and continues to make using the Internet
easy, safe, convenient and reliable.
III. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
AOL has agreed to provide $15.5 million into a Settlement Fund. From the Settlement Fund, Plaintiffs' Counsel will distribute the Fund on the
following basis, after deducting the costs of notice to the Settlement Class, administrative expenses, any fees and expenses that the Court may award to
Plaintiffs' Counsel and any service awards that the Court may award to the participating named plaintiffs, former named plaintiffs or declarants who have
completed their discovery obligations in the Action.
A. Distribution Of The Settlement Fund to Settlement Class Members. To receive a share of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Valid Proof Of
Claim substantially in the form attached hereto, as explained below.
Each valid claim must include a Statement Under Oath ("Statement") that (1) you installed the 5.0 Software on your computer after September 21,
1999; and (2) after you installed the 5.0 Software you were unable or had difficulty connecting to, accessing your e-mail with, or browsing websites
with, your other ISP or LAN connection, or you believe your computer incurred material instability or another computer difficulty; and (3) your
computer did not experience such difficulty before installing the 5.0 Software; and (4) that all of the information contained in the Proof Of Claim is true
and correct.
In addition to the Statement, Class Members may also submit additional qualifying documentation in support of their claim. "Qualifying Documentation"
is defined to include:
(i) Verifiable third-party receipts for services rendered in order to resolve the computer difficulty asserted in the Proof Of Claim;
(ii) Contemporaneous written correspondence from a third party concerning the computer difficulty asserted in the Proof Of Claim;
(iii) Billing receipt, invoice or other proof of payment from a non-AOL ISP to show use of another ISP.
Recovery under the Settlement will be directly related to the level of proof provided by the Settlement Class Member, and each Proof Of Claim will be
classified as follows:
Level 1 Claim. Statement with two (2) or more forms of Qualifying Documentation;
Level 2 Claim. Statement with one (1) form of Qualifying Documentation;
Level 3 Claim. Statement without any additional Qualifying Documentation.
The amount paid on any valid claim will depend on, among other things, the number of valid claims received from Settlement Class Members and the
level of Qualifying Documentation provided.
The proposed plan for distributing the Net Settlement Fund is as follows. Each valid Level 1 claim will be paid the same amount; each valid Level 2
claim will be paid the same amount; and each valid Level 3 claim will be paid the same amount. The amount paid on any given claim will vary among
the levels of claims, however, to further the objective of paying a higher recovery to Settlement Class Members who document their claims. Each
Level 1 claim will be paid in an amount three times the amount for each Level 3 claim, and each Level 2 claim will be paid in an amount two times the
Level 3 claim amount. Thus, if the amount paid on each Level 3 claim is "x," then the amount for each Level 1 claim is "3x," and for each Level 2 claim
is "2x."
The value of "x" will be calculated by the following equation:
[{(Number of valid Level 1 claims) times (3x)} plus
{(Number of valid Level 2 claims) times (2x)} plus
{(Number of valid Level 3 claims) times (x)}]
=
100% of the Net Settlement Fund.
At this time, the parties cannot provide an estimate of the amount to be paid on any particular claim. The amount paid on each claim depends on,
among other things, the number of valid claims submitted, the costs for notice and administration, the attorneys' fees and expenses and any service
awards awarded to participating named plaintiffs, former named plaintiffs or declarants to be deducted from the Settlement Fund, which are
unknowable at this time. However, $250 will be the maximum amount payable on a Level 1 claim; $167 the maximum amount payable on a Level 2
claim; and $83 the maximum amount payable on a Level 3 claim. You should not view these maximum claim amounts as an estimate or
projection of the amount that may actually be paid on your claim.
Once the deadline for submitting claims has passed (September 6, 2002), the Claims Administrator will distribute the Net Settlement Fund among
qualifying claimants according to the allocation plan described above. If there is a balance remaining in the Net Settlement Fund after all claims have
3
been paid, the Court will determine in its discretion the appropriate disposition of the Net Settlement Fund by (a) an additional distribution to the
claimants of the Settlement class or (b) other appropriate disposition.
All Claims Will Be Subject to Verification. False Claims May Be Subject to Legal Prosecution.
In addition to the Fund described above, AOL has been providing the following benefits since May 2000 and has agreed to continue to provide such
benefits to the Settlement Class until at least May 2003, if technically feasible:
B. Hyperlink To Microsoft DUN 1.3 Upgrade. One of the core allegations raised by the Plaintiffs relates to Microsoft's DUN (Dial-Up Networking)
component of Microsoft's Windows Operating System, specifically, that certain older versions of the Microsoft Windows 95 Operating System with
older versions of Microsoft's DUN (DUN version 1.0) may make it more difficult for consumers, who use software with certain dialer adapters (such
as the 5.0 Software), to connect to other ISPs.
The parties have in fact determined that there are certain older versions of Microsoft Windows 95 (Gold and OSR 1) that have a Microsoft DUN
version 1.0 and Microsoft has recommended that consumers upgrade Microsoft Windows 95 Operating Systems to Microsoft DUN version 1.3. The
Parties have also determined that certain allegations raised by plaintiffs and others relating to the alleged interoperability between the 5.0 Software
and older versions of Microsoft's DUN component are resolved by installing Microsoft's free upgrade for DUN version 1.3.
Since May 16, 2000, AOL has provided a hyperlink for a download of Microsoft's DUN 1.3 in the AOL Online "Help" area on the AOL service. Thus,
an AOL member can simply click on the hyperlink in the Online Help area and that member will be taken to the Microsoft support website for a free
download of Microsoft's latest DUN. (Microsoft does not currently allow AOL to provide Microsoft's DUN 1.3 directly on the AOL Help website. If
Microsoft allows AOL to provide Microsoft's DUN 1.3 upgrade directly on AOL's Help Site, AOL intends to do so.)
The Parties suggest that all Settlement Class Members keep their Microsoft Windows Operating Systems current and check their computers for
viruses that may interfere with the operation of software applications on their computers.
C. Information on The Microsoft DUN Upgrade. AOL has provided and will continue to provide live assistance on the Microsoft DUN 1.3 Upgrade issue 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, through its toll-free member services line. In addition, AOL will make available information and respond to questions
regarding the Microsoft DUN issue through its toll-free assistance, its AOL Help site, and the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section of AOL
Help.
D. Upgrade All AOL 6.0 Users To Microsoft DUN 1.3. AOL included Microsoft's DUN 1.3 in its AOL 6.0 software. Therefore, AOL 5.0 users who have
not downloaded the Microsoft recommended DUN 1.3 to make their Microsoft Windows Operating System current will receive the Microsoft DUN 1.3
automatically by upgrading to AOL 6.0 or AOL 7.0. All parties recommend that, if feasible, AOL 5.0 users upgrade to AOL's latest software
application, which is currently AOL 7.0, available at www.aol.com.
E. Additional Language Regarding Settings. All parties agree that AOL asks whether the user wants to set AOL as its default for Internet applications
(such as e-mail and browsing) unlike most other major ISPs. AOL will institute language for the setting of default Internet file associations which
states in substance: "Would you like this copy of the AOL software to be your default Internet application for Web pages, newsgroups, and e-mail?
Click No to keep your current settings. For more information, sign on and go to Keyword: Internet Help" on future versions of AOL software until May
2003. Consistent with industry standards, AOL sets itself as the default for internet connectivity only in the limited circumstances where the user had
a particular Microsoft Windows Operating System, the user did not respond that the user had another method of accessing the Internet and if the 5.0
Software did not detect a network card. AOL will provide further notice that default settings may change as a result of installing AOL software until
May 2003.
IV. YOUR OPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
A. Remain In The Settlement Class And Release Your Claims . You can remain in the Settlement Class and share in the Settlement by submitting an
acceptable Proof Of Claim postmarked no later than September 6, 2002. If you (i) submit a claim form or (ii) do not submit a claim form but do
not opt out pursuant to the following paragraph, you will remain in the Settlement Class and be deemed to have agreed to the Settlement. Unless you
exclude yourself from the Settlement, you will remain a Settlement Class Member even if you do not file a proof of claim. This means you will release
any and all claims, whether asserted directly, derivatively or otherwise, against AOL or any of its parent entities, affiliates, subsidiaries,
predecessors, successors, or assigns, and each and all of their respective past, present or future officers, directors, associates, stockholders,
controlling persons, representatives, employees, attorneys, financial or investment advisors or agents, heirs, executors, trustees, general or limited
partners or partnerships, personal representatives, estates, or administrators, which have been or could have been asserted, whether under state,
federal, common, or administrative law, relating in any manner to the Action.
B. Release Of Named Plaintiffs, Former Named Plaintiffs, Declarants, And Plaintiffs' Counsel. In addition to the release noted above, AOL agreed to a
limited release of the (i) current and former Class Representatives in this Action and in the underlying actions consolidated therein; and (ii) any other
Settlement Class Member who filed Declarations or Affidavits in connection with this Action releasing claims arising from the facts, circumstances,
statements and court filings related to this Action, including but not limited to claims for abuse of process or malicious prosecution. This limited release
does not release the (i) current and former Class Representatives in this Action and in the underlying actions consolidated therein or (ii) any other
Settlement Class Member who filed Declarations or Affidavits from any obligations arising out of their agreement to AOL's Terms of Service. AOL
also agreed to a narrow release of Plaintiffs' Counsel releasing claims arising from the facts, circumstances, statements and court filings related to
this Action, including but not limited to claims for abuse of process or malicious prosecution.
C. Exclusion From The Settlement. You may decide that you do not want to participate in the Settlement. To exclude yourself, you must: send a letter or
postcard, which must be received no later than July 5, 2002, and include your name, address, and telephone number; the name of the case (In
4
re America Online, Inc. Version 5.0 Software Litigation, MDL Case No. 00-1341-MD-GOLD (S.D. Fla.)), to the Claims Administrator at: 5.0 Software
Settlement, P.O. Box 8859, Melville, New York, 11747- 8859; a description of the computer (ideally, the year, make and model of the computer owned
or leased and the serial number); the name and address of the person in whose name the computer is or was beneficially owned or leased; and a
statement that you wish to be excluded from the Settlement Class.
If you validly request exclusion from the Settlement (i) you will be excluded from the Settlement Class and the Settlement, and cannot receive any
benefits under, or object to, the Settlement; (ii) you will not be bound by the final judgment entered; and (iii) you will not be precluded from otherwise
prosecuting any individual claim, if timely, that you may have related to the matters referred to in the complaints in this Action.
D. Remain In The Settlement And Object To The Settlement. If you decide that you would like to participate in the Settlement class and/or the Settlement,
you may still have the option of objecting to the Settlement under the procedures set forth in Section 6, below.
V. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
The Court w ill determine the amount of the Settlement Fund to be awarded to Plaintiffs' Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in
prosecuting this Action. Plaintiffs' Counsel intend to apply for attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 30% of the Settlement Fund plus reimbursement
of out-of-pocket expenses up to the amount of $ 1,300,000. The Court will also determine whether to award and, if so, the appropriate amount of, any
service awards for participating named plaintiffs, former named plaintiffs or declarants who participated in the Action. Plaintiffs' Counsel intend to seek
service awards ranging between $1,000 and $5,000 for the participating named plaintiffs, former named plaintiffs and declarants, depending upon their
level of participation in the Action. AOL reserves the right to object to plaintiffs' attorneys' fee and expense petition and any application for service awards
to participating named plaintiffs, former named plaintiffs and declarants.
VI. THE SETTLEMENT HEARING
A hearing will be held before The Honorable Alan S. Gold at 1:30 p.m. on August 9, 2002, at the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida,
Miami Division, 301 North Miami Avenue, Miami, FL 33128, to determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate, whether this case should be dismissed with prejudice, whether Plaintiffs' Counsel should be awarded attorneys' fees and
expenses and whether service awards should be ordered.
If you decide to participate in the Settlement and not to request exclusion, you may come to the hearing to support or to object to the Settlement or
to the fee and expense application. You may choose to hire, at your own expense, an attorney to represent you for this purpose. If you object, you will
be barred from bringing your own individual lawsuit asserting claims related to the matters referred to in this Notice, and, if your objection is rejected, you
will be bound by the final judgment as if you had not objected. In order to object, you must file a written objection, including the basis and specific reasons
for your objection, together with papers in support of your objection, with the Court. If you wish to be heard at the Settlement hearing, you must so
indicate. Settlement Class members who do not timely make their objections in this manner will be deemed to have waived all objections and shall not be
heard at the hearing. Objections must be filed by July 5, 2002 at the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, 301 North Miami Avenue,
Miami, FL 33128. You must also ensure that copies of your objection and any other supporting papers are received by the Counsel for the parties at the
addresses listed below no later than July 8, 2002.
A. J. De Bartolomeo AOL Counsel
GIRARD GIBBS KIRKLAND & ELLIS
& De BARTOLOMEO, LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
160 Sansome Street, Suite 300 Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104 Washington, D.C. 20005
Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel
This notice is only a summary of the proposed Settlement. The full terms are set forth in detail in the Stipulation Of Settlement which is in the
court file available for review during regular business hours at the office of the Clerk of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida located at 301
North Miami Avenue, Miami, FL 33128. Contact the Claims Administrator (through the ways described above) with any questions about this Notice or the
Proof of Claim form. NO INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT.
Dated: March 27, 2002 By Order of the Court
THE HONORABLE ALAN S. GOLD
Settlement 15.5 Million
Amount to consumers - 8.7 million
the rest goes to lawyers!
Almost half- goes to lawyers the rest get split up between everyone who claims. So fill out your claim form and sit by the mail box waiting on your check for $1.00. But don't lose the check stub! You've got to pay taxes on that money next April.
This kind of crap just burns me up. AOL throws 15 mil at a problem (I guess they skip sending free CD tins for like a day)- a few lawyers make a killing and everybody else gets jack.
Real victory for the consumer here. And did the lawyer balk at settling? Of course not- they just hit the powerball and won 7 million.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Damn, one mouse click away from $1000! Why did I have to go and install it so efficiently? Well, thats not quite true, I'm in the wrong country but why can't something like that happen to me! Now, wheres that screwdriver, I think I'll go and poke myself in the eye.
Hello Jon
"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
So let's see the attorneys take the most money home when everyone else gets $250 at the most? Now lets not forget AOL doesn't pay for this settlement but rather an insurance company. Sounds like the only major victory was by the lawyers who originally took on the class action lawsuit. Can't believe their insurance company agreed to that..
Of course, you have to admit you use AOL.
well... i wager that 98% of the people here uses AOL -- in some way or another. Just think AIM; besides... all thoes turner movies -- do they count?
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Monkey Ass Jew!
We need to see more of these kind of lawsuits IMHO, if major software companies can be held accountable for glitches like this then we are a step closer to having better software produced. Support your local class action lawsuit.
Of course I've never personally used AOL, although I've had similar problems with lots of other software, anything from Microsoft for example. I wonder, could the subject of a new similar lawsuit be the many instances of covertly installed spyware along with other software? Hmm.
__ No registration required to read this message. They did it in the Matrix.
By completely screwing with a customer's windows installation, they were just innovating, providing the customer with what they want. I mean, who'd want to use anything other than AOL's default settings? /sarcasm
No, this proves exactly what happens when you cater to the lowest common denominator in computing. You try to make it so the customer can't fsck it up, and you end up fscking it up worse than if you hadn't made it easy.
It does, however, seem wrong to me that AOL is paying damages -- if the contention is that the software wouldn't let them use AOL (which they pay for), that's one thing. But a person wouldn't be able to collect from, say, a piece of shareware that screwed things up. "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDE AS-IS...."
Customer: I found a real Internet Service Provider. But I can't use it because AOL keeps popping up whenever I get online!
AOL Tech: What're you talking about?? AOL is the Internet!
--
From the earlier article:
"The suit seeks damages of up to $1,000 for each of the 8 million consumers estimated to have installed the software."
From the later article:
"America Online has agreed to pay $15.5 million... Under the plan, consumers would be paid about $8.1 million, with the rest going mostly to the attorneys."
That's about $10 per consumer. Looks like two orders of magnititude were lost in the shuffle. Maybe the plaintiffs should consider a class action lawsuit against their own counsel?
It was hard not to feel like a jerk. My pot dealer, the laggingest guy of all time, called the other day. I told him that I didn't need anything, that I found a new dealer, one who doesn't lag at all. He sounded kind of disappointed.
I guess it's like talking about your new lady with your old one. It's awkward.
--
pants ahoy
Or is it just me? I personally hate AOL, but what is wrong with it being the "default" program. Especially since you have the option of changing that! All kinds of competing software does this. Quicktime vs. Windows media, Netscape vs IE. What got me about this article was the little line "consumers would be paid about $8.1 million, with the rest going mostly to the attorneys." Ahhh... sudently the light goes on! To me this is nothing more than a way for some lawyers to get rich at the expence of someone else. Even if the "someone else" is a large company that most informed computer users hate, that doesn't make it right.
Sigs are out of style, so I'm not going to use one...oh wait..
The settlement page indicates that you have to prove damages by producing a receipt showing that your computer was screwed up / unstable / unable to dial any other isp / etc. and you had to have it fixed. What money does a person get if they fix it themselves, or their granddaughter comes over and makes it all better?
and who had to do dialup support back when this came out, and had customers bitching and moaning at US because they were dumb enough to pop a CD someone mailed them into their computer... as always, there will be nothing.
I swear, we should have kept track of the hours spent, and then billed AOL or something.
Get off my launchpad!
were used to make AOL's drink coasters?
--Blair
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I hate Netscape/Mozilla. Why did those programmers back in 1997 decide to combine several programs which should be seperate into one? It just adds useless bloat.
Microsoft on the other hand has made their internet programs, Internet Explorer and Outlook Express, seperate from each other which is just plain better.
No one will adopt Netscape/Mozilla as their browser for just this reason. It is not modular.
since you dont have logs it might not help you, but talk to different people about starting a class action suit of ISP Support vs AOL... if a bunch of ISPs sued and AOL settled, some would get their money back, and hopefully aol wont be so stupid in the future.
Yes, I used AOL at that time, because it was the only service in the area I was living in that would allow me access. The only connection available was dial up, as this was rural area. Did the connect to AOL work? Yes, but it also prevented me from dialing into my work and connecting to the local system there.
I guess it doesn't matter at this point. This suit only allows for people who willingly used the AOL service, yet did not know anything was wrong with their system. Funny how the only people who would be able to know something was wrong are the same persons being excluded (because they are able to provide their own solution).
You keep going until you die..."Me".
Looks like John will be compensated for his time dealing with the unpleasant AOL account cancellation staff.
0 5/ 14/0138249&mode=thread&tid=95
http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/
~Alexander
AOL should start sending out CD-RW disks so people can write over them like we used to do with the floppies. I miss those days. Now the best purpose an AOL CD can serve is a coaster.
$15M suit. $8M after lawyers fees. Maximum take per customer that files is $250 (DOLLARS). This seems like the kind of lawsuit that serves no purpose whatsoever. Software modifies your computer, thats all there is to it. From what I gather, there's nothing malicious going on by AOL, they just got users that complained that the aol software:
-made itself default on the system. netscape tries todo this, hell even mozilla does this.
-makes computers more instable. last i knew, AOL runs on windows. if you install ANYTHING, ittl make windows less stable. thats part of the game.
-didnt allow users to connect to remote ISP's. this sounds like a DUN/RAS problem. so, readd the other ISP.
I'm probably oversimplifying the small details, but all in all, this is plain stupid.
People arent going to be taken seriously when real problems occur if people sue for this kind of stuff.
It's about time someone sued AND WON a lawsuit for crappy software. I mean, we are free to wrtie crappy software, but when you practically force people to use insecure/unstable/harmful software, there is a certain amount of accountability. I wonder if we can start suing MS for all the time we've spent rebooting at work, installing uber-patches to save our computers, etc. THAT settlement could (and SHOULD) put MS into bankruptcy.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/051602_l iewontstand.html
t ung_story.html on Sept. 14, the BND warned both the CIA and Israel in June that Middle Eastern terrorists were "planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." The story specifically referred to an electronic eavesdropping system known as Echelon, wherein a number of countries tap cell phone and electronic communications in partner countries and then pool the information. The BND warnings were also passed to the United Kingdom.
i e_story.html German police, monitoring the phone calls of a jailed Iranian man, learned the man was telephoning U.S. intelligence agencies last summer to warn of an imminent attack on the World Trade Center in the week of Sept. 9. German officials confirmed the calls to the U.S. government for the story but refused to discuss additional details.
2 _lucy.html.
May 16, 2002, 19:00 PDT (FTW) -- Never in the history of scandals involving the United States government has an attempt to conceal criminal conduct by an administration been more transparently dishonest or more easily exposed. On May 15 White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer -- while making the startling admission that President Bush received CIA and FBI intelligence briefings in August indicating Osama bin Laden might be planning hijackings -- told major news sources including CBS News, "All appropriate action was taken based on the threat information we had," Fleischer said. "The president did not -- not -- receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers."
In other statements Fleischer told the press, "The president was also provided information about bin Laden wanting to engage in hijacking in the traditional pre-9-11 sense, not for the use of suicide bombing, not for the use of an airplane as a missile." According to a May 16 story by the New York Times, "Mr. Fleischer said the information given to the president in Texas [last August], had prompted the administration to put law enforcement agencies on alert."
Every major position taken by an administration in full retreat and on the defensive can be easily deconstructed and shown to be false.
For more than seven months FTW has been documenting specific warnings received by the U.S. government from both foreign intelligence services and, in one case, from Russian President Vladimir Putin, indicating commercial airliners were going to be used by terrorists to attack -- among other things -- the World Trade Center in the week of Sept. 9. In order for Fleischer's statement to be credible he would have to assert then that George W. Bush either ignored or was not informed of a direct warning from a head of state and also from the German intelligence service, the BND.
As reported in the German daily Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung (FAZ) http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/f_a_zei
No known denial by the BND of the accuracy of this story exists, and the FAZ report indicates the information was received directly from BND sources.
According to a Sept. 14 report in the Internet newswire online.ie, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/online_
According to a story in Izvestia on Sept. 12, Russian intelligence warned the U.S. last summer that as many as 25 suicide pilots were training for suicide missions involving the crashing of airliners into important targets.
In an MSNBC interview on Sept. 15, Russian President Putin stated he had ordered Russian intelligence to warn the U.S. government "in the strongest possible terms" of imminent assaults on airports and government buildings before the attacks on Sept. 11. No credible information has emerged from any source indicating that Putin omitted the above information when issuing the warning.
Many other direct warnings were received by the U.S. government and have been documented in FTW's 9-11 timeline located at: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_0
These stories give the immediate lie to Fleischer's statements that Bush had no inkling of airliners being used as weapons.
But there is more.
In 1996 -- as reported by the German paper Die Welt on Dec. 6, and by Agence France Presse on Dec. 7 -- Western intelligence services, including the CIA, learned after arrests in the Philippines that Al Qaeda operatives had planned to crash commercial airliners into the Twin Towers. Details of the plan, as reported by a number of American press outlets, were found on a computer seized during the arrests. The plan was called "Operation Bojinka." Details of the plot were disclosed publicly in 1997 in the New York trial of Ramsi Youssef for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
FBI MEMOS TRIGGER WHITE HOUSE BACKSTEPPING
In "traditional" hijackings the hijackers have no need or desire to learn how to fly.
As reported by the New York Times, CNN and the Washington Post (among others) the events leading to Fleischer's statements were the recent disclosure of FBI memoranda originated by field agents in Arizona and Minnesota that warned of a possible hijack attempt by bin Laden's followers. In both cases the suspects were taking flight lessons.
According to Newsweek and the New York Times, FBI agents in Phoenix submitted a classified memorandum in July naming Osama bin Laden and tracking the activities of possible Middle Eastern terrorist suspects who had enrolled in local flight schools. The memo, according to the Times, stated bin Laden's followers "could use the schools to train for terror operations." The information in the Phoenix memo was not shared with FBI field agents in Minnesota who had uncovered other startling evidence.
Just days before the attacks in early-September, FBI agents in Minnesota wrote notes that subsequently became included in an internal FBI document warning that accused terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui "might be planning on flying something into the World Trade Center." A story from the May 20 issue of Newsweek by Michael Isikoff described how a local flight instructor had reported Moussaoui had "showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer [and not land] large airliners...The [FBI] agents were 'in a frenzy, absolutely convinced he was planning to so something with a plane.'"
A multitude of sources have reported the FBI agents requested a warrant to search Moussaoui's personal computer but were denied by Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department. After the 9-11 attacks the computer was seized and found to contain information directly related to the World Trade Center attacks.
This apparent lack of support from within the administration is consistent with reports released last fall by the BBC's Gregg Palast showing that in January 2001 the Bush Administration had issued direct orders to the FBI to curtail investigations of two of Osama bin Laden's relatives, Omar and Abdullah bin Laden. The two bin Ladens had been connected to possible terrorist activities and were living in Falls Church, Va., near CIA headquarters.
APPROPRIATE WARNINGS?
Fleischer's statement that adequate warnings had been given to appropriate federal agencies falls flat on its face. Two of the most "appropriate" agencies would have been the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard.
As documented by researchers like Jared Israel at www.tenc.net, it has been standard FAA procedure for more than 25 years to scramble U.S. fighters to intercept -- not shoot down -- any errant or non-responsive aircraft under FAA control. This protocol is even more stringent in the case of a hijacking. Yet, Vice President Dick Cheney and others have stated publicly there were no fighters available in some cases, and there was no heightened state of alert on Sept. 11. For 50 minutes on 9-11, in direct contravention of established policy, no fighters were scrambled to intercept two outstanding hijacked airliners even though it was known attacks were in progress.
Given the above information, it would have been an obvious move to have placed fighter aircraft on a heightened state of alert in this time period. This unresponsiveness stands in contrast to the fact that, in October 1999 at a time when there was no heightened alert, the ill-fated Lear Jet occupied by golfer Payne Stewart had an F-16 fighter and an A-10 attack aircraft flying beside it within minutes of losing radio contact and veering off course.
INSIDER TRADING
FTW has spent months on this important story that proves foreknowledge of the attacks by people who also profited from them. This was a glaring warning signal, since such trades ran the risk of being detected by intelligence agencies that routinely monitor all market activity in real time.
The insider trading involves the placement of large numbers of "put" options on stocks of companies directly affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. They include United Air Lines, American Air Lines, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, AXA Reinsurance, Munich Reinsurance and Swiss Reinsurance. Put options are a leveraged bet that a stock's price will fall dramatically.
As CBS news noted on Sept. 26, the peak of trading activity occurred just before the attacks. There was a jump in United Air Lines put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between Sept. 6 and Sept.10, and 285 times higher than average on Sept. 6. Numbers for other affected stocks were equally alarming. It is uncontested that only United and American stocks had this level of put buying before the attacks. No other airlines were affected.
A May 13 story by the Washington Times' Insight Magazine attempted to explain the insider trading by stating higher numbers of put options had been placed on United and American stocks earlier in 2001. By relying only on the numbers of put options, Insight asserted that there was nothing unusual about the pre-9-11 trades.
However, FTW has contacted several experienced traders and reviewed existing documentation from financial experts, which indicate the alarm for insider trading is to look for any "imbalance" between the level of put options (a bet that a stock's price will fall) and the level of call options (a bet that a stock's price will rise). It is a significant imbalance in puts vs. calls that indicates criminal insider trading. The Insight piece did not address this point.
Several traders have stated that in a fairly flat market with high trading volumes, it has been a routine procedure for experienced traders to place roughly equal numbers of puts and calls on various stocks in order to generate a paper cash flow. They were quick to point out that by September, the market had gone into sharp decline and trading volumes were way down. Thus, lower numbers of put options did not mean that everything was normal. They stressed it was the imbalance in put-to-call ratios that signaled the insider trading. [Ed. Note: FTW has undertaken a more detailed investigation of this trading activity and hopes to have a more comprehensive report within 4-6 weeks].
Part of the problem in Insight's research stems from the fact that since Sept. 11, there has been no transparency from either the government or the financial sector on how the trades worked or how the markets tracked them. Secrecy is everywhere. Telephone calls have not been returned, and the government refuses to divulge any information about probes it admits are still ongoing. But simplistic dismissals from sources quoted in the Insight story contradict not only other evidence, but statements made by financial experts and major news sources just after the attacks.
"This could very well be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you've ever seen in your entire life...This would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence," said Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg Business News, interviewed Sept. 20 on Good Morning Texas.
"'I saw put-call numbers higher than I've ever seen in 10 years of following the markets, particularly the options markets,' said John Kinnucan, principal of Broadband Research, as quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle," reported the Montreal Gazette on Sept. 19.
To quote 60 Minutes from Sept. 19, "Sources tell CBS News that the afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market."
Assertions that the reported number of puts involved were not abnormal also failed to analyze highly intricate shell games that involve the movement of put options to markets outside the U.S. or hidden in what traders refer to as "net positions." Serious financial experts have indicated the profits from insider trading could have been in the billions. Andreas von Bulow, a former member of the German parliament responsible for oversight of Germany's intelligence services, estimated the worldwide amount at $15 billion, according to Tagesspiegel on Jan. 13. Other experts have estimated the amount at $12 billion. CBS News gave a conservative estimate of $100 million.
A hasty conclusion reached by many is the insider trades were placed by bin Laden and his associates. Such a notion is flatly contradicted by the now absolute certainty that such insider trades would have -- and apparently did -- set off alarm bells. It makes little sense to argue bin Laden et al would have risked compromising at the last minute an operation planned in total secrecy for at least four years.
Also lacking credibility is the argument that many of the trades were what some brokers described as inconsequential amounts valued at $1 million or $2 million. This does not address the possibility that U.S. intelligence officials decided in a few cases to make a quick profit from attacks they knew were going to succeed. As distasteful as it may seem, this explanation is far more credible than an assumption that bin Laden made the trades himself and risked the exposure of what the world has been led to believe was his life's "masterpiece."
For more information on 9-11 insider trading please visit www.copvcia.com.
The explanations offered by the Bush Administration over the last 48 hours will not withstand even the slightest scrutiny if a major press organization asks any question about the warnings received from credible foreign government sources and heads of state. Other questions must inevitably follow that will implode an oil dictatorship whose sins and crimes are exposed and just waiting for someone to pick them up and run with them.
I work at a ISP as a Tech support rep, the isp I work for is a 56k provider, any one that has Windows 95, 98 or ME, will have problems with AOL software 5 and version 4. This is what you do to fix it: 1. R&R Dial up Networking (DUN) Say no to version conflicts (in the control panel go to add remove programs) 2. R&R TCPIP and remove all AOL clients installed in your "Network" in the control panel. Make sure when you are done you have Client For Microsoft Networks, Dial Up Adapter and TCPIP. I normally reinstall everything But Dial Up adapter. Save and it will ask you for your windows cd or cabs, supply them and MAKE SURE YOU SAY "NO" to all version conflicts. It will ask to reboot say "No" 3. GO into msconfig and remove AOL from the startup of your computer!! Press yes and reboot! Now you should be all set! No more curruption. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO CLEAN YOUR SYSTEM! And if this doesnt work you have alot of registry hacks to do... P.S. DO NOT OPEN AOL AGAIN or it will recurrupt your system! :)
keanmarine.com
Layout your guidelines of what you expect the software to handle before it's written. Write or create test cases which will check for the guidelines. Now write the software and fix it until it passes all of the tests.
;)
That said, it depends on what I'm doing as to whether the test cases are automated or a quick checklist.
Last, I've yet to figure out how to effectively test for bugs in the test case code
I work at a ISP as a Tech support rep, the isp I work for is a 56k provider, any one that has Windows 95, 98 or ME, will have problems with AOL software 5 and version 4. This is what you do to fix it:
:)
1. R&R (Remove and Reinstall) Dial up Networking (DUN) Say no to version conflicts (in the control panel go to add remove programs)
2. R&R TCPIP and remove all AOL clients installed in your "Network" in the control panel. Make sure when you are done you have Client For Microsoft Networks, Dial Up Adapter and TCPIP. I normally reinstall everything But Dial Up adapter. Save and it will ask you for your windows cd or cabs, supply them and MAKE SURE YOU SAY "NO" to all version conflicts. It will ask to reboot say "No"
3. GO into msconfig and remove AOL from the startup of your computer!! Press yes and reboot!
Now you should be all set! No more curruption. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO CLEAN YOUR SYSTEM! And if this doesnt work you have alot of registry hacks to do...
P.S. DO NOT OPEN AOL AGAIN or it will recurrupt your system!
keanmarine.com
 238;By completely screwing with a customer's windows installation, they were just innovating, providing the customer with what they want. I mean, who'd want to use anything other than AOL's default settings? /sarcasm
No, this proves exactly what happens when you cater to the lowest common denominator in computing. You try to make it so the customer can't fsck it up, and you end up fscking it up worse than if you hadn't made it easy.
It does, however, seem wrong to me that AOL is paying damages -- if the contףּ ; #8238;ention is that the software wouldn't let them use AOL (which they pay for), that's one thing. But a person wouldn't be able to collect from, say, a piece of shareware that screwed things up. "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDE AS-IS...."
 238; Use automated unit tests. It is true that it won't catch everything, but nothing will. The only system operating perfectly is off. Unit testing aint a panacea of perfection, but its a heck of a lot closer than "Well, the numbers /looked/ right!".
Read all the extreme programming practices. No, you don't have to follow them (any or all). But you should READ them and WHY they were suggested. Knowing why will help you.
Standard code practices are good. Anything that can help you automate things is good.
My software can log every memory allocation and uses a quick n dirty perl script to ensure that each was deallocated (I write code with ZERO memory leaks and no garbage collection). Consider similar practices.
Work your ass off. There is no magic toggle switch somewhere you can flip between hell and perfection, you gotta do it yourself. But I do and it aint that hard. You can too.
Look at the subject of the message. He's not trying to offer any insight: he posting obviously inflammatory and false remarks. You have been trolled.
Are you going to bother refuting the subject of this message?
Or is it just me? I personally hate AOL, but what is wrong with it being the "default" program. Especially since you have the option of changing that! All kinds of competing software does this. Quicktime vs. Windows media, Netscape vs IE. What got me about this article was the little line "consumers would be paid about $8.1 million, with the rest going mostly to the attorneys." Ahhh... sudently the light goes on! To me this is nothing more than a way for some lawyers to get rich at the expence of someone else. Even if the "someone else" is a large company that most informed computer users hate, that doesn't make it right.
Is still the comsumer. This is the first major lawsuit I can think of against a software developer that takes care of that ridiculous "we're not responsible for any damage our buggy POS software does to your PC" clause.
VIVA LA VICTOIRE!!!
-didnt allow users to connect to remote ISP's. this sounds like a DUN/RAS problem. so, readd the other ISP.
No, it installed a heavily customized version of the Dial-Up Networking (DUN) DLLs, which was incompatible with most standard Internet access. To regain connectivity to other ISPs, a user had to uninstall AOL, remove the AOL Adapter, and reinstall DUN.
-- Pinocchio Poppins (former alt.aol-sucks member)
I reckon we all deserve hefty compensation for having to the flood of morons AOL has unleashed onto the 'Net over the last five years.
"Yes, well, we were planning on increasing our price by $2 per month starting in July, so in lieu of sending out checks we'll only charge everyone $1 more for the month of July. From August on we will be charging the planned $2 increase."
It's a small comfort to those of us in Tech Support for and ISP, but.. man.. it's good to see that it didn't TOTALLY go unnoticed.
That stupid AOL Dialup Adapter caused us more headaches then all the people who couldn't remember their e-mail passwords in the history of the internet ever did.
22is claim is worthless to me. The claim form says I need receipts. I handled my own system and the only thing I lost was time and access. Why would I bill myself for working on my own computer?
Yes, I used AOL at that time, because it was the only service in the area I was living in that would allow me access. The only connection available was dial up, as this was rural area. Did the connect to AOL work? Yes, but it also prevented me from dialing into my work and connecting to the local system there.
Mc Donalds is where you go to get fat and eat a burger around a 500 calories, but SubWay is where you go to eat a sub around 50 calories. AOL is where you go for bad service but MSN is where they treat you right.
2Settle ment 15.5 Million
Amount to consumers - 8.7 million
the rest goes to lawyers!
Almost half- goes to lawyers the rest get split up between everyone who claims. So fill out your claim form and sit by the mail box waiting on your check for $1.00. But don't lose the check stub! You've got to pay taxes on that money next April.
This kind of crap just burns me up. AOL throws 15 mil at a problem (I guess they skip sending free CD tins for like a day)- a few lawyers make a killing and everybody else gets jack.
Real victory for the consumer here. And did thde lawyer balk at settling? Of course not- they just hit the powerball and won 7 million.
you fat nigger
Damn, one mouse click away from $1000! Why did I have to go and install it so efficiently? Well, thats
xxnot quite true, I'm in the wrong country but why can't something like that happen to me! Now, wheres that screwdriver, I think I'll go and poke myself in the eye.
In The United States District Court For The Southern District Of Florida
IN RE AOL VERSION 5.0 SOFTWARE LITIGATION
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
nnIF YOU HAVE INSTALLED AOL VERSION 5.0 SOFTWARE ON YOUR COMPUTER,
YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND.
What sucks most about AOL's behavior is that they knew before shipping 5.0 that it had this "Evil Connectoid" bug. See this story from 1999.
30% of the settlement, or an equal share, which ever is less.
That's right up there with "Heads, I win. Tails, you lose."
and I'm an aolcoholic.
How can this be serious? Loads of software that people install screws up there system but the eula always says that the company take no responsibility for any damaged caused. Out of all the things that software could do to bugger up you system, changing a few internet connection settings doesn't seem like that big a deal. Then again this is America, where people sue at the drop of a hat.
Your computer isn't worth all that much, neither is the software on it.
AOL didnt't really harm them.
While their practices may be disgusting, how much in damages are you looking to exact?
The only thing that this does is put a bunch of AOL employees in the unemployment category.
there is this site( i belueve the .isgay.com and co sites) that have their hate mail posted on it. it seems that half the time the people threaten to tell AOL on them or the "internet police" to what they are referring too i can only guess but has aol set itself up so that people think it controls things that much? perhaps an intro to the "internet" become mandatory in high school? i know most kids these days have the basic use of a computer down but they do not know anything about how the internet is arranged.
I believe the correct term for multiple AOLers is "snert."
Your statement should read: "the snert of morons AOL has unleashed..."
. .
Okay, it's 5am and I may not be 100% :)
What strikes me is that this settlement is irrelevant :
From discussion above, (Settlement - Legal Fees) / Complainants does not amount to a whole hill of beans for any individual, let alone even real compensation for the time and effort involved in fixing the settings which were hijacked. I agree also that the way that the complainants have to get a "receipt" for their troubles from another ISP is bumkum.
Okay, that notwithstanding, none of this has any benefit to the consuer _at large_ because it was a settlement between private parties.
If it had been a _ruling_ and some case law / precedent were set, then other companies planning this might have to take note and stop hijacking people's configurations.
Maybe I'm missing something about US law, but this strikes me as just a payoff to a few lawyers and a bunch of complainants who bothered to do their (pretty ridiculous) paperwork. If it's just a private settlement, there's nothing to say it will discourage anyone from using the same unplesant practises in future.
Oh well, since when did "public good" pay anyone's bills . . . .
What the!
"Look where we worship" -- Jim Morrison
I used AOL for nearly 5 years. I am not a fan of their service, but still maintain an account because my girlfriend prefers it. I used to do tech support at a call center that supported several major laptop manufacturers. Every night I would fight the very problems (not as many as an ISP fights I'm sure) described in this suit and then go home and sign onto AOL myself. However, I had several reasons:
1. I'm not sure of the limit today, but they used to allow you to send up to 35 meg attachments you could also do this multiple times. On more than one occasion I had over 100 meg in my inbox.
2. they were very early in their implementation of web based email (yes, i used hotmail and places like that too in the past, but the file size limitation often got in the way.)
3. In the old days (I definately can't say this anymore) the junk mail, for some reason, seemed to be a lot less on that account compared to hotmail, yahoo, etc.
4. Uptime - i don't think i can remember a time that the main AOL service being down caused any problems for me.
5. admittedly, dial-up to AOL can be somewhat problematic depending on the quality of the local number, but AOL combined with a local ISP for a BYOA (bring your own access) account provided a lot of flexibility.
6. this point is not near as valid as it used to be, but the AOL only content that used to be offered was much higher quality overall than a lot of what was offered on the internet in general. (I'm pretty sure I'm going to hear about this one)
My main point in all of this is not to say AOL is great... far from it. I am saying that it has merits that can benefit the advanced user as well as the novice user that thinks AOL is the entire internet.
anyone remember the commecial where the guy says "My friend told me to get AOL, I said why I've already got a computer."
that one always cracked me up:)
I am one of the poor souls that had to switch to MSN thanks to Qwest for my dialup support (rural MT, and Qwest was fast and stable for a 56k connection.) The required M$ software totally ursurped my dialup networking, I cannot find any way to uninstall it when I change to a new provider, of course I can't check email with mozilla and have to use wonderful Outlook, and along with several other annoyances, I can't even close msn messenger down because it is used be other programs. How is this really any different than AOL? We have less and less control of our rights every day while these large organizations try to manipulate everything we do with our lives.....shrug, welcome to corporate america I guess.....
1. When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
2. Do not eat iPod shuffle.
Have you read Right to read yet?
I'm trying to remember when it began. Which version of Windows was it that detected the presence of OS/2 on the hard drive and offered to remove it "to free up disk space?"
I'm sick to death of competitive installations. When I put my mouse over an "upgrade software now" button I feel like I'm playing Russian roulette and am just about to pull the trigger.
What are the chances that I'm going to disable something else I use? Yes, there's a huge grey area: sometimes the effect is innocently (bad SQA). Sometimes it's semi-intentional, the software equivalent of the car rental clerk saying "sign here" over a page of 50%-gray type on a 33%-grey background. You know, what does this gobbledegook about 'making the the default application for opening your media files' mean? I guess I'll just push the return key and take the default....
Sometimes I think it's intentional. Hey, we're just sharp, competitive businessmen, kicking competitors in the groin is what made this country great...
I think needs at the very least to be a "truth-in-installation" law. The installer should disclose clearly, in plain language, EVERYTHING it's going to do in terms that are meaningful to the consumer. ("Increase stability, and, oh, yes, enforce the license agreement by technical means and, by the way, send information to us over the Internet which, according to our just-changed privacy policy we can share with our trusted partners...)
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
You don't let your relatives, or your coworkers, or anyone that wants to see the real Internet use AOL.
People that like to have their information filtered and riddled with ads could use it, but I don't know anyone like that.
Me: ha, ha.. largest quarterly loss ever.
Geek (rich): I know, I know.. I still made money in the long run.
Designer: what?
Me: AOL
Designer: AOL SUCKS!
Geek (rich): I hear they're going to acquire Cox.
Designer: Ten inches and longer?
Geek (rich): Netscape, Time Warner, what next?
Designer: NETSCAPE SUCKS!
Best Windows Freeware
A tech actually told the latter line about Mozilla when I asked how I could access my mail account with a user name like "Erris@mycoputer". I ended up using fetchmail to get around the stupid set up, and the blocked incomming port 25, but the tech did NOT help me.
AOL has to go to all of these lenghts because M$ will break their client if they do not. That fact makes this whole lawsuit a bunch of BULLSHIT. TWO PIECES OF SOFTWARE DID NOT WORK TOGETHER. ONE OF THEM REFUSES TO WORK WITH SOFTWARE FROM MANY OTHER COMPANIES, AND OLDER VERSIONS OF THEIR OWN SOFTWARE. WHICH PIECE OF SOFTWARE DO YOU THINK WAS AT FAULT IN THIS CASE?
Yes, I'm an AOL user. I've had an account for freaking ever. I access it through AOL anywhere with Mozilla on any computer with a browser. My OS preference is Debian. There is much AOL could do better, but there's not much they can do about their M$ client software.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
How about a lawsuit against M$ for letting it happen? It's their googey system that boned everyone. They built a userless OS with a flimsy registry that any software can stick any old binary crap into but will break your computer. They did it so they could force MSN, AOL used the exact same mechanisms. The whole Hell Desk thing is a direct result of this kind of intentional push. Is is AOL's fault M$ spagetti coded everything to break if you want an ISP that is not M$?
Look at the numbers. Are one in ten techs at your ISP on standby for Apple calls? How about Linux? No? How about the number of acutal calls? Apple, Linux, BSD, Solaris, not giving you problems? Hmmmmm, that's a wide spectrum of users that don't have this and other kinds of problems. What do the majority of calls have in common? NEXT!
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
the real winner in this is the lawyers. they get almost half.
-c
Hate to say it, but after signing onto AOL back in like 1992, I still have my AOL account. I never use it for actual dialup access or anything, I just keep it around ($10/month) for the email address. I've given many people over the years that email address, and even though I am now using SBC DSL and have another email address, I've kept the AOL access just because I want to be accessable to people I may have given my address to years ago.
Not that I like AOL. In fact, a lot of the time I just use the web access for my email.
Time for someone to sue New.NET over this crap? I need to reinstall my box because of Eww.NET-alikes hijacking my browser...
--joshua
the 1st time i read this I laughed out loud:
Diary of an AOL user
july 18- i just tried to connect to america online, which I've heard is the best online service I can get. i can't connect, i dont know what is wrong.
july 19- some guy at the tech support center says my computer needs a modem. i dont see why. hes just trying to cheat me. how dumb does he think i am?
july 20- i bought the modem. i couldnt figure out where it goes. it wouldnt fit in the moniter or the printer. im confused.
july 21- i finally got the modem in and hooked up. that three year old next door did it for me.
july 22- that three year old kid next door hooked me up to america online for me. hes so smart.
july 23- whats the internet? i thought i was on america online, not this internet thingy. im confused.
july 24- the three year old kid next door showed me how to use this america online stuff. he must be a genius, at least compared to me.
july 25- i tried to use chat today. i tried to talk into my computer but nothing happened. maybe i need to buy a microphone.
july 26- i found this thingy called usenet. i got out of it because im connected to america online, not usenet. i went to the doctor today for my regular checkup. he says that since i connected to america online, my brain has mysteriously shrunk to half its normal size.
july 27- these people in this usenet thingy keep using capital letters. how do they do that? i never figured out how to type capital letters. maybe they have a different type of keyboard.
july 28- i found this thingy called the usenet oracle. it says that it can answer any questions i ask it. i asked it 44 seperate questions about the internet. i hope it responds soon.
july 29- i found a group called rec.humor. i decided to post this joke about why the chicken crossed the road. to get to the other side! ha
ha! i wasn't sure if i posted it right so i posted it 56 more times.
july 30- i keep hearing about the world wide web. i didnt know spiders grew that large.
july 31- the oracle responded to my questions today. geez, it was rude. i was so angry that i posted an angry message about it to rec.humor.oracle.d. i wasn't sure if it posted right so i posted it 22 more times.
august 1- someone told me to read the faq. geez, they didn't have to use profanity.
august 2- i just read this post called make money fast. im so exited, im going to make lots of money. i followed his instructions and posted it to every newsgroup i could find.
august 3- i just made my signature file. its only 6 pages long, so i will have to work on it some more.
august 4- i just looked at a group called alt.aol.sucks. i read a few posts and i really believe that aol should be wiped off the face of the earth. i wonder what an "aol" is, however.
august 5- i was asking where to find some information about something. some guy told me to check out ftp.netcom.com. ive looked and looked,
but i cant find that group.
august 6- some guy suspended my account because of what i was doing. i told him i don't have an account at his bank. hes so dumb.
Is is AOL's fault M$ spagetti coded everything to break if you want an ISP that is not M$?
Did you read the article? DUN (Microsoft's Dial Up Networking applet) isn't the problem, here.
DUN works fine with non-MS ISPs. Other ISPs are not on trial here for screwing up settings with their broken proprietary software.
Or is your idea of a real ISP someone who forces you to install a proprietary dialer and other software that tracks your usage and tries to market to you, and also uses proprietary protocols for mail, etc.?
This isn't talk radio. Get a clue, or at least read the article, before you spew. It is definitely AOL's fault, not only for releasing buggy code, but for denying that it was a problem for days and weeks afterwords, after it became public knowledge and we began warning our customers. You would be all over Microsoft if they did this; why are you defending AOL?
Look at the numbers. Are one in ten techs at your ISP on standby for Apple calls? How about Linux? No? How about the number of acutal calls?
*nix installs, with the exception of OSX, are not sufficiently end-user-friendly enough for us to do much troubleshooting for customers. Just think of where all your RPMs might be, whether your permissions are set properly, etc. Oh, yah, and do you think maybe the reason that a huge number of our calls are for MS Windows boxes is because almost all of our end users use MS Windows, anyway? Mac users would know to delete and rebuild if things get "corrupted" (they "corrupt" more often than our MS users) and *nix users either know how to administer their systems or have admins on staff.
Get off my launchpad!
Eh? I am over M$. Their crap banished to a network blind computer in the corner of my room that talks to cameras and a scanner. A real OS is used on the same machine to transfer files off it.
The reason that is so is because I got sick of rebuilding broken M$ garbage. M$ built a flimsy OS so that it would easier to replace than fix. Face it, most people who actually use and rely on M$ junk have to rebuild their computer once every two months or so, or it gets all slow and broken. If AOL's stuff broke M$ it's M$'s fault, period. If M$ had a reasonable OS it would not be broken that way, all the time. If every M$ software maker was held to this standard, they would all be hit, especially M$. Show me one Win95 or 98 box that has been used that has not required a rebuild. Don't tell me w2k is any better, I'm forced to use that buggy junk at work.
Oh, yah, and do you think maybe the reason that a huge number of our calls are for MS Windows boxes is because almost all of our end users use MS Windows, anyway?
I think 10% of your users have macs, and at leat 7% use Linux. If 1 in 6 of your calls are not about mac or linux problems, you can be sure that what people say about M$ being crap is true.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
umm no, if they open AOL it repairs its self and currupts the system again (AOL fixes its self)
keanmarine.com