Slashdot Mirror
Intuit Sued Over Product Activation
An anonymous reader writes "PCWorld is reporting: [Scott] Leviant's firm of Stanbury & Fishelman has filed a class-action lawsuit against Intuit in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of all U.S. purchasers of TurboTax software for the 2002 tax year. The suit alleges that Intuit engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices by failing to fully disclose the mechanisms and consequences of its product-activation technology before consumers pay for the software."
Battling the evil forces of Microsoft Money? Ahh, the good old days when things were black and white.
Okay, start taking bets to see if Stanbury and Fishelman will sue Microsoft for their similarly sinister product activation systems.. bet they don't!
I think product registration is a great idea, as it can help you get a better service and allows the company to get info on its users.. but forcing you to activate a product is just a Big Brother attitude.
How would you like it if you had to 'activate' your car every time you moved or made an upgrade to it? Sure, it might help the insurance companies a whole lot, but it's just not right. Ditto for software.
mogorific carpentry experiments
In protest, I will evade my taxes this year.
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
People can argue about the merits of this or that with product activation but the thing that really sucks here is the motivations and the way the law works. This is in effect a company touting for business saying "hey look we think a bunch of people could get cash here" its not that they have any real evidence of actual damage that was caused beyond people being a bit miffed.
What sort of legal system allows Lawyers to start procedings before they have plantiffs ? No other industry works like this, and in fact almost no other countries legal system works like this. This is a sickening example of how law suits can be created just because a lawyer needs a new Ferrari, NOT because there is real evidence of damage.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
It's true. I should know, it happened to me.
I thought it was something that _I_ personally did wrong until I started searching Google trying to find out what I did wrong before installing the software. Did I mess up permissions some where? Did I forget to "su root" before running the scripts? Where was the error?
Well, then I found a blog that said "Likely the biggest problem users have expressed, is the level at which the TurboTax licensing agreement is managed and protected with the SafeCast/C-Dilla technology. People believe C-Dilla infiltrates their system in a very insidious manner, and uses memory and resources even when TurboTax is not loaded. And some believe it has caused them serious compatibility problems with non-related CD writing operations. (PC Magazine and ExtremeTech will be conducting some tests next week to see if we can duplicate some of these problems).
Intuit and Macrovision have provided only cursory information regarding C-Dilla operations. Understandably, Intuit does not want to expose significant details. But if the scheme is mathematically and technically sound, there really is no reason why ALL the details should not be known, as it would likely not be computationally feasible to crack in a reasonable timeframe, even if one is armed with full knowledge of how it works. Unless Intuit and Macrovision provide this level of information, many people will still not trust you."
Background: 28/M/Bi-Sexual; Owner of a Linux company; MBA Harvard 2003; B.S. Comp Sci MIT 2000
The really annoying part about this stuff is that kids who can file with their parents taxes according to the software, but don't have access to the same computer, can't share the software within the family anymore. I suppose this is what the software company is going for. It must be nice to have a monoply.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
We're supposed to PAY for that software? CRAP.
Yes, There are several. I use a product called TaxAct. They are located Here
Product activation is *always* bad. I pay for my software. Even donation-ware and shareware. Heck, I even buy CDs from Red Hat and FreeBSD Mall. Gives me a warmFuzzyFeeling(tm).
I would NEVER pay for software that plays tricks with my hard drive, even if I needed it and the price was right. When I see software that does this, I get mad and pull out my eyepatch and put the parrot on my shoulder.
I remember the old days...
.... ahh the old days...
When if a product was well written and did its job, it would sell...
You could put a whole application on a 3.5" disk.
Printed manuals!
When you didn't need copy protection and activation screens. Piracy was more-or-less a marketing tactic more than something that cut into sales (and IMO it still is, but the software publishers don't want the public to know this)
Software companys generated revenue through customer loyalty (as opposed to customer extortion)
One software product had the audacity to recognize that other competing/complimentary products from other publishers did exist, and openly supported import/export functions
When most commercial software wasn't written in Pakastani or Indian programmer-warehouses.
Tech support telephone numbers weren't systemmatically hidden in a maze of FAQs, if at all, and they were 800 numbers.
You could install a software program without worrying if doing so would completely screw up your computer, other programs, or wipe out all your data.
When a "newer version" actually meant more features and functionality.
When the first version of a software package wasn't labelled "6.0"
When software was designed to work with the hardware and RAM you had installed in your machine, and didn't require you to upgrade to next generation crap in order to operate acceptably.
Yes, it is that product activation is bad all of the time.
I am against software piracy, and I've bought tax software every year from 1992 until last year (I still have every program). This year I'm doing my taxes by hand for the first time ever.
The problem with product activation is it turns the software from a product into a service. Even though I have the CD, I can't install the program with full functionality. When I buy software, I want to be able to run it forever. I still have a parition with DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11, mostly to play older games. I also run legal copies of Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Slackware. I do not run XP, and I won't as long as it has product activation.
I'm in Canada, but if I was in the US, I'd consider buying the software just to join the lawsuit.
Jason
ProfQuotes
OK, so suppose Intuit gets slapped down. Still doesn't stop other weasels from writing in the boot track. Does this tool exist:
:-)
1. before install, make a backup of the boot track and checksum it.
2. after install, checksum the boot track, and display diffs, if any.
3. optional restore of the boot track.
This allows us to get our old boot tracks back, and *still* get the fun of starting a righteous flame-war on SlashDot.
Sorry if the answer to this is "yes, you clueless fool, go use tool __". But at least I'll get educated
There's also the new protection from Macrovision that some games (Mechwarrior 4 Mercenaries for example) use that install a program that monitors what you burn to CD, and has been reported to destroy your ability to burn *ANY* CD in some cases. It's nasty. It runs as a service in XP (look for C-Dilla in the services... Macrovision bought C-Dilla), and if you get rid of it, delete the files it installs, it reinstalls the next time you run the software UNLESS you run it as a limited user. (Of course, doing that means you can't save your config in the game.) If you delete the DLL in the game directory that it calls, the game then won't load.
.nfo files where they tell you what the protection was:)
The companies have become so hellbent on stopping piracy (which their techniques don't. Don't believe me? Check IRC sometime) that they no longer seem to care about fucking over the legit consumer. (Witness the number of problems people have with SecuROM and Safedisc "protected" titles.) All they do with these routines is stop the casual copier, but everyone I know just downloads the titles anyway. I can't remember the last time anybody I know engaged in "casual copying". Macrovision and Sony (they created SecuROM) have pulled the biggest scam ever on the software companies by persuading them to pay for their crappy "protection".
Side note: Always amuses me in the warez groups
TurboTax has the Windows(tm) logo flag. So, I take it they pass the "Designed for Windows" logo criteria.
How in heaven's name could anything that writes the boot track earn the Windows logo? This cranky old software validation manager smells either cluelessness (MSFT) or cheating (Intuit) or some combination of the above.
For us Canucks out here ...
Like the rest of you I got tired of this Intuit crap and started looking for the alternatives last year.
TaxWiz : Used it for my 2001 filing for my family (5 adults). Lousy interface and printing is a royal PITA, but overall did the job. Uh oh, bought by Intuit.
CanTax : Used to sell personal versions for consumers, but now concentrates on tax professionals. Tried out the demo and decided to use it this year. Assumes at least better than novice tax prep knowledge. Pricey ($79 for 15 returns) compared to the consumer level stuff but seems solid.
Dr Tax : Like CanTax, targeted towards the professional tax prep people. Tried the demo -- seems solid enough but too much work if you're not a tax geek.
Anyway, hopefully the field doesn't narrow too much next year!
What do you mean you "don't have a congressman"? Just pick one out! We got 20 million mexicans who can vote, get a drivers license, get free medical care, bring over their entire familes, open bank accounts and now even get social security-all of whom are not "legal" immigrants. No idea how many legal, that is OK as far as I am concerned, but the other 20 million do exist, and what I said is true, they do all that stuff and no one says boo to them--so-- don't let being a canadian get in your way, the US is wide open! Have fun! Pick "your" congress weasel out and let him have it with your opinion!
%^)
Must you accept that for every copy of software sold that two will be pirated?
Draconian copy proiection does nothing to solve this - it just punishes legitimate users.
If you don't believe me, try going on Overnet (or eDonkey, Kazaa, etc.) and search for "turbo tax." I just turned up 13 hits for the full program, and about 60 hits for cracks for it.
Software companies learned back in the 80s that extreme copy protection just drives buyers away. That's why games don't come with those ridiculous code wheels and text-lookups-in-the-instruction-manual protection schemes any more.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
I installed TurboTax onto a clean Win2000 guest OS in VMWare. The only boot sector the activation routines got to touch was the one on the virtual drive. Oh, and after I installed TT (but before using it), I made a copy of the Win2000 guest OS file.
So if I wanted, hypothetically, I could copy that VMWare file to any other machine and run it from there.
I don't have any intention of copying or sharing the software. But it pisses me off that a) I had to take these measures to ensure the safety and stability of my real OS installation, and b) for all the possible danger to my machine if I'd installed it the normal way, it was trivial to circumvent.
Good move guys.
Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
The whole time I've had anything to do with Intuit's products, they have been trying to nickel and dime me to death. I guess I'm smarter than the average Quicken user and anyway it pissed me off enough that I wasn't willing to give in.
Let me count the ways.
With the online banking available for Quicken and Quickbooks, there is a monthly fee. Web banking at all three of the banks I've used since the web has been around has been free.
Quicken comes with tax tables that it will use to calculate payroll withholding, but the tax tables expire after a few months. To get updates to the tax tables, you have to pay for a subscription.
But the information in the tax tables is made available for free by the IRS and each state tax agency, and in fact is printed and mailed to business owners each year at taxpayer expense.
Yet there is no facility for manually entering the tax tables or importing tax table files that could reasonably be downloaded for free off the net.
My business has only one employee (myself) so what I do is work out my withholding in a spreadsheet. I've found that doing the calculation this way helps me understand my taxes better when I'm deciding what to pay myself each time. Fortunately QuickBooks allows me to enter the withholding manually - I wouldn't be suprise if they remove that in the future.
They're constantly trying to sell you preprinted checks and invoice forms. You should be able to print nice invoices from QuickBooks on an inkjet printer without using preprinted forms, but there is no facility for designing the invoices. So what I usually do is type up an invoice and email it to my clients; if they want a hardcopy I use a wordprocessor. That works out for me because I don't invoice clients very frequently - it wouldn't work for a retail store.
If you reinstall Quickbooks after reinstalling your OS or move it to a new machine, you have to reactivate the product. My copy of Quickbooks doesn't have the horrible activation scheme this article is about, but what is a pain is that after activating it a couple times, you're told that the product is in use and it won't reactivate. You have to call tech support to get a code to reactivate it.
Fortunately I now have this code written down so I can reactivate it myself. But you know, I paid for the product, I should be able to use it without registering it. They have my damn money.
The last straw for me was that earlier this year, Intuit canceled support for QuickBooks 99's online banking. I got spammed with upgrade notices every time I logged on before this happened. After it happened I canceled my online banking and now I just use the web banking.
I have come to the conclusion that online banking like Quicken and Quickbooks have is just not that good an idea. The whole time I've used both products I have had trouble with my accounts not balancing right. Now that I reconcile my accounts manually with my bank statements, and so am much more careful about it than the supposedly convenient online banking, I have been able to get my books to balance exactly.
I used TurboTax a couple times. I didn't like it the first time I used it, but I used it a second year because I was out of the country and wanted to file online.
First, I think it's pretty damn useless. To handle the schedule C, business income, it asks such meaningful questions as "enter your business expenses" - but you have to figure that out yourself without using turbotax. It's just as easy to enter it on a paper form.
Last year my taxes were much more complicated because I now own a house and so am itemizing deductions, but I found that while doing my taxes by hand, without using software, I was able to claim a deduction that saved significant money. Turbotax would never have found that deduction.
(What I did was have my corporation pay rent to me personally for rental of my home office. But I would have to pay taxes on the rental income. What I was able to do was to depreciate the portion of my home used for business purposes. The maximum depreciation allowed was the business income on the property - which was the total amount of the rent. So I was able to pay myself the home office rental tax-free, I won't have to pay taxes on the rent for decades. The IRS had no complaint about this. Turbotax wouldn't have been able to deal with it.)
I just plain feel that it's wrong for a software publisher to require me to activate a product before I can use it, and so I will never knowingly purchase a software product that requires it. That means I'm never going to install Windows XP. Also I'm never going to install service pack 3 on my Win2k box, because of the EULA.
Finally, I'd like to suggest that if any of you work for companies that have staff attorneys, that you suggest to the attorneys that they require attorney approval of EULAs before any software gets installed. If enough companies start doing that, the current nonsense that passes for a license agreement will get set straight pretty quick - imagine if General Motors wasn't willing to use Windows because their staff attorneys objected to the license agreement!
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Wonderfully done, bravo. State the obvious (that anti-piracy targets non-hackers) and then mix in a little FUD (that IRC DCCs are "trojan packed distribution"s).
You get extra creativity points for painting those who would like to exercise their right to fair use with software as "someone who'll jerk around in an IRC room all night".
This lawsuit is a wake-up call (actually a RE-wake-up call since we've already been through this once before in the software arena) to software companies that have gotten too big for their britches: Don't piss off your customers...period.
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
A couple weeks ago I was shopping at my local grocery superstore and picked up a copy of TurboTax Basic from a display next to the service counter. I usually have one of those *block services prepare my taxes, and it usually costs $75 or more in fees. I really didn't put much thought into buying TurboTax. An hour later I fired up the Windows2000Pro laptop I have an slipped in the CD. The next 3 hours was an amazing lack of progress at getting the thing installed, and 3 support sessions with the company involving uncounted people on their end and a fun phone bill for me.
The cause of my problems are the partition scheme of my laptop. The Windows2000Pro system C: partition is 900MB, just big enough for the OS and some temp files. The swapfile is on another larger partition, as are all third-party applications.
The "Minimum System Requirements" on the box (a DVD-style clamshell) are easy to read through the shrinkwrap. To summarize the relevant parts, the OS list included Windows2000, the hard disk space specified 65MB and an additional 60MB if IE was not installed. IE 5.5 or higher was listed as being required to access online features, obtain product updates, and complete electronic filing. I read this before buying, and noted that my system meets all the requirements given on the box.
On insertion, the CD autorun process kicked up a splash window, then an animated install menu window. I clicked the obvious choice to register and install, followed the prompts through selecting my type of network connection, filling out the registration info and getting to a window with a single button to "Install." Clicking the install button got me a window where the file copying process is obviously supposed to happen, but instead I get a standard alery window that informs me that there is insufficient space on the hard disk to install.
Some notable things at this point: I have never been presented a EULA of any type. None of the windows I have progressed through have displayed a EULA, nor has there been any possible sequence of buttons that makes one appear. There is no EULA in the printed material inside the box. I have also not entered the CD key code anywhere in the process. There is no prompt for it anywhere up to this point, not even in the registration window where I entered my name/address/email type info. This becomes interesting in another hour or so when I'm on the phone with their support staff.
I'm now at the point where the TurboTax installer will not proceed further because I do not have 191MB available on drive C:. I want to install on drive E: which has plenty of space, so I consulted the FAQ on the turbotaxsupport.com website. I didn't find anything applicable, so decided to consult a support staffer about the best way to make this happen. (They use a webchat interface to provice frontline support.) The live person on the other end directed me to the web FAQ with a set of steps for installing from hard disk instead of CD, involving simply copying the CD installer files to the HD. Doubtful, I tried it anyway, and was not surprised when the installer still stubbornly insisted that there was not enough space because it was only scanning the C: drive. I still had the webchat window open, which gave me an option to select that I was unsatisfied with the help I was given and offered me a chance to talk with a "senior" support staffer via webchat. I muttered "hell yes" and was shortly explaining the problem all over again to a new person. I was walked 4 times through the complete process, echoing the window headings and options at each step laboriously. None of the suggestions made were helpful, and few even made any sense at all. At one point I was even told that the only solution would be to uninstall and then reinstall. I reminded him politely that getting the product installed in the first place was the whole point of this exercise, and asked how I could possibly uninstall when nothing has been installed even once yet. I was then treated like a fencepost and told to find the TurboTax menu under Program Files from the Start menu, at which point I seriously wondered what problem the support staffer thought we were trying to fix. (Of course there was no entry under the start menu.) Finally after convincing him that the product was in fact not installed at all, not even a little bit, and could not be uninstalled, he gave up and provided me with a voice toll number and PIN. I asked for a toll free number but was told none exists. Ouch, since I was envisioning a lengthy call if my experience so far proved typical. I decided to take this as far as it goes.
I had no problems getting to a live person quickly. He seemed to understand the nature of the problem and over the course of the next hour I had a pretty dizzy ride as I was asked the same questions repeatedly and he was consulting with an increasing number of people on his end. I had some pointed questions about the minimum requirements listed on the box, such as why the installer wanted 191MB in the first place, since the requirements plainly state 65MB. I was told that the higher amount was due to not having IE 6.0 installed. I pointed out that the IE requirement on the box stated 5.5 or higher, not that 6.0 was needed. I was told that was true, but if 6.0 is not present the installer will install it. I pointed out that the box said that only 60MB more was needed for IE if it was not present, which means a total of 125MB minimum requirement and asked why 66MB more than that was needed. I didn't get an answer to that. I asked him to confirm that IE 6.0 was required, contrary to what the box said. I was told that IE 6.0 is needed, but he stopped short of giving me an actual confirmation that the box was wrong. I asked him to confirm that the requirements on the box were wrong specifically regarding HD space and IE version, and he went on hold for a while. When he came back he asked me if I read the EULA, as all these facts were in the EULA. I told him I hadn't read the EULA and asked where I could find it, at the same time pointing out that it was irrelevant since I had no way to read system requirements prior to purchase other than on the outside of the box. He told me I must have seen the EULA, it was on the third window of the install process. I told him I didn't remember clicking past it, and by now I had gone through these steps many times. I did it again for him, step by step, this time saying "no EULA" after describing every window. When we got all the way to the diskspace alert, there had been no EULA presented. I pointed out that anything in the EULA couldn't possibly apply to me since it never made an appearance. He never mentioned the EULA again.
At one point or another in the phone conversation I was told the following things, all of which turned out to be false:
That I wasn't being presented all the installer windows because I didn't have IE 6.0 installed.
That the EULA was presented on the third window and before the registration form.
That it was possible to install my E: drive regardless of available space on C:
The end result seemed to be that the installer scans the C: drive before offering an option to specify the location for installation, which they agreed was stupid. They insisted that after that space check there is a prompt that allows changing the installation location, but you can't get there if you don't have enough space for the entire installation on the C: drive. They also changed their minds about how the IE installer worked, and said that it offers a choice to not upgrade to IE 6.0, but obviously not before the space check. I have my doubts, since the disk space alert pops up at the beginning of the file copy process, with the progress bar ready to start counting files. I'm not sure where they are fitting in the choices for install location and options, but it sure doesn't seem to be before the initial file copy. This implies to me that it always needs 191MB on the C: drive to install, no matter what the environment is, which is still 66MB more than the requirements stated on the box. I hope it's not so, but I doubt I'll ever see for myself. I'm not repartitioning my system to accomodate a single proprietary tax program.
I know my experience surely isn't typical. Most people have 200MB or more free on their C: drive. I just don't have the extra space to waste on my laptop for a Windows system partition, and this shouldn't be about how I partition my machine. There were several humorous points for me in the conversations, I think the funniest was when I was told by one of their "experts" to relabel my drives to swap E: and C: just for the install and then switch them back. I had to keep from laughing as I explained that I couldn't change the letter of a running system boot partition, and even if I could the system likely would die immediately and certainly wouldn't be bootable in that condition. Another funny one was the idea that "minimum system requirements" meant only those needed to run the application, but not to install it. Their argument was that the installer temporarily needs more than the minimum requirements during installation, but that the program would run fine with the listed requirements. I believe that is an unreasonable position.
I was given an address to return the product for a refund and cut loose. I came away with several concerns, especially surrounding the EULA (or apparent lack of one) and the listed minimum system requirements, which are misleading at best and untruthful at worst. It's bad enough that a product requires you to buy it before you can read the EULA, and we're used to that. But for the CD-based installer to require you to register the product before you can even install it, and doesn't even show you the EULA until after it copies the product to your hard disk is pretty bad in my opinion. Perhaps I should count myself fortunate that I never got far enough to see the EULA.