Racketeering Trial of MS and Best Buy Can Proceed

mcgrew (sm62704) writes with news that the Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by Microsoft and a unit of Best Buy to dismiss a lawsuit alleging violation of racketeering laws. This means the class-action complaint can go to trial. The case was filed in civil court and the companies, with the US Chamber of Commerce behind them, wanted the Supreme Court to put the brakes on the expanding use of RICO laws in civil filings. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act was designed to fight organized crime, but in recent years more than 100 times as many civil as federal RICO cases have been filed.

Comments

Organized crime?

[myowntrueself]

So how, exactly, is this *not* organized crime?

Re:Organized crime?

[pembo13]

So how, exactly, is this *not* organized crime?
You beat me to it. I have given it some thought, and the only difference I see is that the IRS directly gets a cut, and I would argue that even with the mob/mafia, the IRS does get a cut of the profits, if only indirectly and in smaller proportions.

Re:Organized crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like the deal of Apple with AT&T is *NOT*.

Re:Organized crime?

[MichaelKaiserProScri]

The deal between AT&T and Apple sucks, but is legal, because it is disclosed ahead of time. The deal between MS and Best Buy is illegal because it was not disclosed.

Re:Organized crime?

[flyingsquid]

So how, exactly, is this *not* organized crime?

The organizations that we consider true organized crime- the Sicilian mafia, the Russian mob, Colombian drug cartels, or the Yakuza, all have one thing in common. That's the use of violence and the threat of violence to coerce people. So you can be organized and be criminal- say, get a bunch of corrupt accountants together and embezzle a bunch of money- but nobody would accuse you of really being "organized crime" until your accountants start beating people over the head with their adding machines. Likewise, unless Microsoft execs starting making death threats, and literal ones, not Ballmer's "fucking kill" tirade, I wouldn't consider them organized crime.

Re:Organized crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

A long time ago, prosecutors realized that organized crime tried to use legitimate business faces to sustain and grow itself. When various business interests, controlled by a common hand, unite to box their victim into an alley where they can be persuaded to "donate" their money to a cause also controlled by those same business interests, that's a serious threat to civilization. If each participant could only be prosecuted for disturbing the peace, the mugging would continue unchecked.

The real shame is that private citizens have to leverage civil courts for relief. If their are 100 times as many civil RICO actions as there are criminal RICO actions, it is most likely because prosecutors are not doing their jobs. A mugging is still a crime. Just because it is performed by people in suits doesn't make it less of a crime. And when the suit in the corporate office is orchestrating the systemic muggings of all their customers... it is a crime. An organized crime.

Re:Organized crime?

[Opportunist]

The IRS gets its cut.

Re:Organized crime?

[Smidge204]

So even if we stick solely with your definition, the only difference in their behavior is the use of violence. If you replace the threat of physical violence with a threat of legal and financial ruin, they are virtually identical.

Use violence to coerce people? Organized crime!

Use lawyers to coerce people? Just shrewd business!

I think you watch too many movies, personally. The coercion part is what makes it "organized crime", not the means and methods.
=Smidge=

Re:Organized crime?

[ed.mps]

Even if you are correct (and personally, I agree with your POV) the laws are made by and/or for businessmen profit in the vast majority of the cases.
So,

Use violence to coerce people? Organized crime!

Use lawyers to coerce people? Just shrewd business!

are, currently, the rules.

Re:Organized crime?

[flyingsquid]

Use lawyers to coerce people? Just shrewd business! I think you watch too many movies, personally. The coercion part is what makes it "organized crime", not the means and methods.

Hm, why isn't agressively suing people organized crime? Gee, I don't know... maybe because it's not, you know, criminal to sue people? One might even go so far as to say that using lawyers is legal. Using the law does not necessarily make something right and moral (for instance, the RIAA), but pretty much by definition if you're working through the legitimate processes of the legal system, it's not organized crime.

Re:Organized crime?

[plague3106]

Ok, what threat of legal or financial ruin did this guy suffer? I don't see anything that was threatening by either company. If true, its truly sleazy, but threatening? No.

Re:Organized crime?

[bl8n8r]

> So how, exactly, is this *not* organized crime?

In organized crime, the supreme court is paid off before hand.

Re:Organized crime?

[morgan_greywolf]

Ok, what threat of legal or financial ruin did this guy suffer? I don't see anything that was threatening by either company. If true, its truly sleazy, but threatening? No.

RICO covers a whole slate of acts, not just coercion. Among them is (tada!) wire fraud, which, if true, Microsoft and Best Buy did participate in, since this guy never authorized MSN to charge his card.

OTOH, if you really want to look at it from a coercion angle, do you know what happens if you fail to pay a credit card charge, authorized or not? They report it to the credit card companies. The more they report it to the credit card companies, the more 'black' marks on your credit. Yes, they can report it over and over, too. Ever try to buy a house, or a car with a bad credit rating and no co-signer? It's damn near fscking impossible in this country, let me tell you.

Re:Organized crime?

[Attila Dimedici]

The deal between MS and Best Buy was not illegal, unless giving the credit card numbers used to purchase computers at Best Buy to MS was part of it (and then only if not getting customer consent was part of the deal too). The suit is over Best Buy supposedly giving a customers credit card number to MS without informing/getting the customers permission. That is what is illegal. The fact of the deal is what makes the crime subject to RICO. I agree with the Chamber of Commerce that RICO has become overly broad in its application, although I'm not sure which side of the line this particular suit is. On the one hand, the RICO laws were clearly not intended to apply to cases like this (I remember the situations that led to the laws being passed, it had to do with efforts by big time drug dealers to turn drug money into legitimate businesses). On the other hand, without the threat of treble damages, the kind of profit that a big company can make off of most people's inertia is too much for most companies to resist.

Re:Organized crime?

[Bacon Bits]

Suing absolutely can be illegal (or, if you prefer, legally actionable). It's known as barratry, abuse of process, vexatious litigation, or frivolous litigation.

If you bring a case against someone solely to punish them with legal proceedings, that's often illegal. Even if it's not, it gets lawyers disbarred.

Re:Organized crime?

[zcat_NZ]

Funny, I thought the Mafia often used threats of financial damage, perhaps as often as threats of violence.

"Nice restaurant, be a shame if it burned down.."

And the russian mafia have been associated with various scams involving botnets and DDOS attacks against popular gambling websites.

It's not always the kneecaps.

Re:Organized crime?

[hawk]

>maybe because it's not, you know, criminal to sue people?

*shudder*

If it becomes so, you'll see me next to the "Why lie? I need a beer." guy [1] with a "Will sue for food" sign.

hawk, esq.

[1] He's been there about 20 years now. I understand that there's a bmw around the corner that he uses to drive home.

Re:Organized crime?

[dannannan]

Hey, remember the antitrust case? A federal Judge concluded that Microsoft committed "violence" against the marketplace. :-P

D

Re:Organized crime?

[Artifakt]

The RICO act is found under Title 18, which is where the government normally puts Federal criminal law. It's pretty fair to argue in general that anything in Title 18 is supposed to be focused on criminal acts, not applied broadly to a mixture of criminal and civil cases.
      Congress included mail and wire fraud as applicable crimes in RICO's definition. They didn't include what's frequently called law fraud, which is probably how we should best classify the acts in this case. Wire and Mail fraud have been interpreted very broadly in a number of previous cases, both RICO and non, and so they will probably stretch to fit again, but it may not be a natural fit. It's somewhat like the charge of Kidnapping. Kidnapping has been used when a victim was moved just a short distance, say from one building to another on the same block, but that's not how the law was originally envisioned and it sometimes appears to be selectively applied when the prosecutor wants to add charges, or the base crime appears loathsome and abominable to the public.
      Because of this, a number of recent RICO cases have set new limits for when RICO can apply to what start out as normal civil cases - of interest are:

        * Evans v. City of Chicago, 434 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2006)
          This cases set some standards for how serious an injury to business or property needed to be before the damages should be called irrecoverable, as that word applied to RICO.

        * Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541 ( 9th Cir. 2007)
          This case concerned the distinctions between enterprise activities and racketeering activities, and obviously is particularly applicable to another Microsoft case. Microsoft may invoke some of these distinctions as a means of claiming their intent was to comply all along with existing law.

        * United States v. Daidone, 471 F.3d 371 (2d Cir. 2006)
        This case offers a number of relatedness tests that have become more commonly used in subsequent cases.

Re:Organized crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

Likewise, unless Microsoft execs starting making death threats, and literal ones, not Ballmer's "fucking kill" tirade, I wouldn't consider them organized crime. Until you can walk in a store in the United States (unlike free countries) and buy a computer without an O/S or with Linux on it, I would consider it the next best thing to organized crime.

In the Free World (which does not include the United States, but does include the Philippines) you *can* walk into a random store and buy a computer with Microsoft.

Re:Organized crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... I never realized barratry included "the offense of frequently exciting and stirring up lawsuits and quarrels." I knew this definition for it: "fraud by a master or crew at the expense of the owners of the ship or its cargo."

Come to think of it... isn't the third definition what is going on now with the low UID bids for the anniversary of slashdot?

3. the purchase or sale of ecclesiastical preferments or of offices of state.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/barratry

Re:Organized crime?

[f97tosc]

I think you watch too many movies, personally. The coercion part is what makes it "organized crime", not the means and methods. There are similarities to the victims for sure, but I place the blame rather differently. For anyone that uses violence I blame them and want to put them in jail. If anybody can coerce others with lawyers I blame the lawmakers and the legal system that made this possible.

Re:Organized crime?

[CodeBuster]

The matter seems to hinge upon what the RICO laws, or perhaps the law in general, define as "coercion" (i.e. the legal definition). The colloquial definition of "coercion" is generally understood to mean the use of force or threat of force to induce fear or intimidate another party into acceding to one's demands. However, it is not unreasonable to extend the application of this definiton beyond the use or threat of direct physical force, as in Argumentum ad baculum, to include other types of force. The threat of a civil tort and the possibility of runious damages can be very intimidating, just ask all of the people who settled with the MAFIAA rather than risk an expensive and drawn out court battle with an uncertain outcome.

Now, proving that Microsoft and Best Buy are corrupt and racketeer influed organizations is another matter entirely, but there is no reason to dismiss these types of cases out of hand in a blanket fashion merely because Microsoft and Best Buy, along with other corporations, find the possibility of such litigation inconvenient. The Supreme Court was absolutely right in allowing these types of cases to proceed on the merits.

Re:Organized crime?

[maxume]

You've had trouble not shopping at Best Buy in the past?

Re:Organized crime?

[AK Marc]

He's had trouble not buying MSN. They may not break his legs over it, but they will take his money without consent. Best Buy forced him to pay protection money to MSN, who he had no relationship with.

Re:Organized crime?

[plague3106]

Fine, but that's not what the OP said; the OP claimed there was coercion.

OTOH, if you really want to look at it from a coercion angle, do you know what happens if you fail to pay a credit card charge, authorized or not?

Not true; legally, if you dispute the transaction, you are no longer required to pay the charge.

They report it to the credit card companies. The more they report it to the credit card companies, the more 'black' marks on your credit.

No, they don't report it to the credit card companies. Visa and MC don't care. The banks issuing the cards report it to the credit reporting agencies.

Yes, they can report it over and over, too.

No, they cannot. They can update the claim, for example if the amount has increased for whatever reason, but there's only so long since they originally reported it that it will stay on your record. Seven years, I believe.

Ever try to buy a house, or a car with a bad credit rating and no co-signer? It's damn near fscking impossible in this country, let me tell you.

Of course its going to be hard with a bad credit rating. But one card will not stop you; I have one I didn't pay, because the bank changed their terms as soon as I activated the card, and failed to send me anything. Yet I was able to get a mortgage, probably because I hold my accounts and have another card with the lender.

If the charges were illegally posted, he can dispute them, and suffer no adverse affects. Of course he'll have to prove he didn't actually sign up for the trial on his own and enter his own information. It sounds like he did agree to it though and forgot about it.. and now is trying to sue to get out of it.

Re:Organized crime?

[abb3w]

So how, exactly, is this *not* organized crime?

"Hah. Don't kid yourself. It's not that organized."

(KEN'S EARS)

Re:Organized crime?

[Dare nMc]

Yes, they can report it over and over, too.

No, they cannot.

I can tell you based on my Sears Master card history.
      1) I disputed, a charge added after I closed the account, I continue to get bills.
      2) goes on the Credit report once.
      3) turned over to collection, goes on the report (this is the second entry.)
      4) once I notified this agency, they could no longer contact me, so they turn it over to another agency.
      5) second agency puts a mark on my credit (third entry for same debt.)
      6) I notify experian directly all marks are removed within a week.
The 7 year thing is extended by this also, the collection agency was reported as a "new" debt, so unless challenged it won't automatically be removed, it will likely be revolved between collection agency's and kept fresh, until the consumer points this out.

Now the second entry (I am told) was in process of being removed when debt was transfered to the next agency, so that may have been a temporary "glitch."

Re:Organized crime?

[Dare nMc]

I should add the nugget of wisdom I gained during this. The CC company, and the debt collection agency ask, do you have a letter from XYZ stating that this has been dismissed.

Sears wording was "A letter you received stating the account was closed with a zero balance."
Of course no CC company ever sends this, this was my opportunity to say "YES" and all I had to do is send them a signed letter stating "I do not owe this, the Card was closed with a 0 balance."
Had I done this with sears it would have been over. When I did this with the collection agency, their attempts to collect were over (barring them taking me to court.)
This wouldn't get it off the Credit report though.

Re:Organized crime?

[cayenne8]

"The fact of the deal is what makes the crime subject to RICO. I agree with the Chamber of Commerce that RICO has become overly broad in its application, although I'm not sure which side of the line this particular suit is."

Just shows that we need to be VERY careful in what laws are allowed to pass....and that that should be written in a very narrow way.

If not...the Govt. always will start using them in ways they were not meant to be used. This is just one example.

Re:Organized crime?

[maxume]

So they committed fraud. Why not charge them with that.

And really, I think that it would be awful hard to demonstrate that MSN requested or endorsed the behavior(whether it was individual employees, managers or Best Buy at corporate level doing it). So maybe there is organized crime within Best Buy(this isn't at all clear), but the connection between the fraud and MSN(especially at a corporate level, who knows what 'some guy' said to 'some other guy') is pretty tenuous at this point.

Re:Organized crime?

[vegiVamp]

> RICO has become overly broad in its application

Well, it's not a bad thing that the Evil Industries learned that too-broad laws can be used against them as much as against us. DMCA, anyone ?

Re:Organized crime?

[plague3106]

Your problem is dealing with Sears at all. They are a bunch of scumbags.

If you disputed the charge, and they did not remove it, they have broken the law. You should have sued. You should also have reported the fradulent transaction to the police.

THAT I learned going through my own dispute process. The bank didn't really want to go that route it seemed, but once I did, and provided a case number to the bank, things went considerably better.

That would also help you go after the credit reporting agencies as well; they cannot hold ligitimate cases of fraud as black marks on your credit. You should probably look at getting a lawyer.

Re:Organized crime?

[AK Marc]

So they committed fraud. Why not charge them with that.

Well, because "fraud" in an isolated case is fraud. There were problems with "fraud" being done by large organizations causing greater problems than just an individual case of fraud. RICO addresses that. Also, "fraud" is a criminal charge. Charging a corporation with a criminal charge is pissing in the wind. Even if you prove the case completely, it isn't like they send the company to jail. If the penalty for crimes committed by a company was being banned from buying or selling anything for the period that a regular person would sit in jail, then it might mean something. But charging a corporation with a crime does nothing other than keep their in-house lawyers busy for a week.

And really, I think that it would be awful hard to demonstrate that MSN requested or endorsed the behavior(whether it was individual employees, managers or Best Buy at corporate level doing it).

I think it would be hard to prove, because I think MS didn't do it. However, if you pay someone who breaks the law while not paying attention to what they are doing, does that make you culpable? If you were a construction contractor it does, so why not for MS? I'm not saying one is better or worse than the other, I'm saying that the current standard does hold some people accountable for not paying attention to what their money buys, so we need to be consistent either way.

Re:Organized crime?

[Dare nMc]

Your problem is dealing with Sears at all.

agreed, I haven't been into a sears in 2 years now. between this, and their auto shop ripping her off and messing up my girlfriends car, then trying to overcharge her, and sending her out knowingly short 2 lug studs twice (didn't tell her first, and don't stock this $2 part common to most cars, on the second.)
since I use to spend at least a $100 every month on tools their, at first I had tool withdraw, but now I have no idea why I ever went their.

reported the fraudulent transaction to the police.

It was a late fee, for paying $20, 3 days before the due date on the final $10 balance. They didn't "post" the payment, even a bank check from a e-bill pay for 3 days (also received 2 days after closing the account, because it had already been sent.) This "late fee" (always removed without argument, after a phone call) was a regular (~2* a year) occurrence IE the reason I closed the account.

Then the person who I called to fix this charge, this time, must have re-opened my account to do that, so a loyalty program fee was added since it was now a year since the last charge for that program (on a now 6 weeks closed account.) I get no notice for 3 months, then a $85 bill (2* $25late fee+$35program charge), but since it was a fee, not a "charge" they can't use the regular dispute form...

Re:Organized crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

unless it suits the political climate - otherwise Morris Dees would be in prison (where the scumbag belongs).

Re:Organized crime?

[maxume]

When I said fraud, I may have been speaking of the individuals actually ringing up the subscriptions. Decide for yourself.

As far as being consistent, RICO wasn't expanded to deal with shoddy construction; it probably shouldn't be expanded to deal with this situation.

Re:Organized crime?

[AK Marc]

As far as being consistent, RICO wasn't expanded to deal with shoddy construction; it probably shouldn't be expanded to deal with this situation.

Being applied to something that fits the definition as written isn't "being expanded" it's being applied as written. The mob made lots of money in garbage collection. RICO wasn't written specifically to deal with garbage collection, but when there was a company screwing people for profit, it was applied. That the garbage company was owned by the mob and Microsoft and Best Buy are owned by mutual fund companies doesn't matter.

Re:Organized crime?

[sjames]

The deal between MS and Best Buy was not illegal, unless giving the credit card numbers used to purchase computers at Best Buy to MS was part of it (and then only if not getting customer consent was part of the deal too).

That is exactly what the suit alleges! If the allegations are true, then it was pure and simple credit card fraud. Just because a business doesn't employ toecutters doesn't mean it isn't organized crime.

Modern organized crime charges customers for services they don't want (or didn't recieve) just like some of the old school mob did. The only difference is that these days they hire expensive legal teams to rough the 'client' up and make sure it's cheaper and less life damaging to just pay up. They have also refined their techniques to nearly exactly ride the line between legal and illegal. The old school guys didn't pay much attention to such pretenses. In that respect, the old mob was more honest than the new corporate players.

The new corporate criminals tend to stay away from contriaband. While the margins on contraband are good, the risks run high.

The 'new mob' is more virtual than the old mob. In the old days, the real owner of a business would sign a deal with a real don and eventually real thugs would kill him. In the new mob, one legal fiction signs a deal with another, then the criminal one "embraces and extends" the smaller one's only means of profit until it goes under or sells out. Instead of blood, it all ends in a pool of red ink these days.

As far as criminal records go, MS is a three time loser.

Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

A quick Google search shows leniency often affects the final outcome.

Important to note

[ejdmoo]

Just because the summary was so scarce on details: this has nothing to do with computers, OEMS, Windows, or OS bundling. It's not that same old story again.

This is about signing people up for MSN without their permission.

Sounds like stupid college students working at Best Buy getting a monthly prize for signing people up for MSN. Doesn't sound like a giant corporate scam. It also doesn't sound like this involves Microsoft at all. I've read the same story online, but replace Microsoft with Comcast (Cable or HSI) or DirecTV

From the AP article...

The dispute began in 2003, when James Odom sued the companies after purchasing a laptop computer at a Best Buy store. Odom alleged that Best Buy included a software CD with his purchase that provided a six-month free trial to MSN.

Best Buy allegedly signed Odom up an MSN account with the credit card Odom used to pay for the computer. After a six-month free trial ended, Microsoft began charging him for the account, the suit charged.

...

The lawsuit alleges the companies violated RICO by engaging in wire fraud when they electronically transmitted the plaintiffs' financial information. The plaintiffs are claiming damages in the "tens of millions," which if tripled would top $100 million, Girard said.

Microsoft has denied illegal conduct in response to these allegations and a Best Buy spokeswoman says the company does not comment on pending litigation.

Re:Important to note

[athdemo]

Damages in the "tens of millions?" Jesus, I didn't know MSN was that bad.

Re:Important to note

[anti-human 1]

"Pain and Suffering." 'Nuff said.

Re:Important to note

[DustyShadow]

"Sounds like stupid college students working at Best Buy getting a monthly prize for signing people up for MSN. Doesn't sound like a giant corporate scam. It also doesn't sound like this involves Microsoft at all. I've read the same story online, but replace Microsoft with Comcast (Cable or HSI) or DirecTV"

I haven't bought much from Best Buy lately but a few years back my roomates and I pitched in for a DirectTV setup and the Best Buy rep was hounding us to sign up for what I believe was AOL. I can't remember exactly what the service was but my point is that he was pushing it really hard to the point that the corporation was most likely hounding him to do it. Even if they aren't pushing it too hard, if they have a bonus system in place and their employees do it, they are still liable for anything their employees do. It doesn't really matter if it's coming the top or not.

Re:Important to note

[MichaelKaiserProScri]

Good point. Microsoft is certainly NOT involved or responsible. Best Buy probably did not DIRECT it's employees to do this. The employees are probably most responsible, but Best Buy bears some responsibility for failing to control it's employees.

Re:Important to note

[ejdmoo]

Replying to my own post, check this post from the Consumerist out...

I'm almost ashamed to admit this, but it did happen for the longest time. Ever get signed for something at Best Buy, but you swear that you never signed up for anything. Here is the trick that is used, and that I was taught from a Best Buy manager. When a customer would refuse either AOL, MSN, NetZero, magazine offers, or whatever other D-SUB we had, we'd sign you up anyway. You know those Best Buy gift cards that are all over the store? Well those are just American Express cards, with a Best Buy face. So, we'd go through the motions of selecting your address but when it asked for your credit card, we'd swipe through a gift card. Since it was an American Express card in reality, the system took it and you were signed up. The customer had to deal with the late fees because they couldn't charge the credit card the provided. Not our problem.

Re:Important to note

[Timothy Brownawell]

Good point. Microsoft is certainly NOT involved or responsible. Best Buy probably did not DIRECT it's employees to do this. The employees are probably most responsible, but Best Buy bears some responsibility for failing to control it's employees.

If it's common enough for a class-action suit, I'd tend to suspect that they're at the very least strongly encouraging (entirely informally, of course) their employees to do this. I mean, scamming people, at your personal risk but for no benefit to yourself, can't be *that* attractive a form of entertainment for the store employees.

Re:Important to note

[Timothy Brownawell]

You know those Best Buy gift cards that are all over the store? Well those are just American Express cards, with a Best Buy face. So, we'd go through the motions of selecting your address but when it asked for your credit card, we'd swipe through a gift card. Since it was an American Express card in reality, the system took it and you were signed up. The customer had to deal with the late fees because they couldn't charge the credit card the provided. Not our problem.

I thought gift cards generally were completely useless unless activated, to make stealing them pointless? Is this a recent thing, or are the Best Buy cards not like this, or something?

Re:Important to note

[vux984]

I thought gift cards generally were completely useless unless activated, to make stealing them pointless? Is this a recent thing, or are the Best Buy cards not like this, or something?

Yes, they were completely useless, insofar as that nothing can be charged against them. But they still have a number, and a functioning mag-strip. And if the system just requires a mag strip swipe with a valid number. (and by valid, we only mean "properly formatted"), then its good to go.

Nothing is actually ever attempted to be "charged" or "authorized" against the card number until the 6 month trial is up, at which point it doesn't work, of course, because the card is useless.

Re:Important to note

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually iPods ;) Thats what we got, when I worked for Best Buy, with their Best Buy Reward zone Credit card (the actual Credit card not the free reward zone that they track your information with.)

Re:Important to note

[RobertM1968]

The problem, which will come out soon, is that the laptop (and certain select other machines) were discounted if, and only if, you signed up for MSN for an X month term.

Same deal when you buy/bought certain Cisnet (and other) machines. In those cases, the machines were *usually* (but not always) labelled "AOL PCs" and the tiny print on the box, and/or on the ad circular stated you'd be signed up for AOL for a year, and that if you cancelled that contract, you'd be charged the discount given on the hardware.

As much as I hate MS, I doubt this is their fault - or even Best Buy's. The stuff is always clearly stated on the ads and signage (even if the person chooses not to read it, or the salesperson chooses not to read it to the customer for them).

I dont feel like digging, but here's a link to an older "rebate" for MSN signup with purchase of a system.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2000/01-07msnrebateqa.mspx

Note this part...

Consumers can normally sign up for the rebate program at participating retailers including Best Buy, Office Max, Office Depot, Staples, etc. For example, consumers who sign up for a 36-month contract with MSN Internet Access may receive a $400 rebate to apply toward the purchase of a personal computer system or other merchandise depending on the retailer and location.

Many places did the rebate instant at time of purchase, while activating the account. Some (CompUSA for instance) issued a rebate form.

Similar programs to that rebate program have been in affect for quite some time. MS - and every major retailer I have worked for or visited - has been very careful to ensure they use the provided signs and wording in their ads and promo stuff. Yeah, it's small print... but just like the small print in the warranty that says "spill damage is not covered" it does not matter whether you read it or not, and it isnt the responsibility of the salesperson to read the whole thing to you. The vendor's responsibility ends with having the correct signage up, and the correct wording (in this case, provided by MS and their legal team, perhaps in conjunction with Best Buy's) on the big price card and in the flyer.

Score a win for Best Buy and MS.

Re:Important to note

[rbanffy]

Awarding damages is very useful to make a company to cease to commit certain acts that, while create some hassle for their victims, bring in huge amounts of money from those who decide not to fight them.

If I do something questionable that will reduce my profits in US$ 100, it's one thing, if I do something questionable that will turn my profits into a US$ 100 million loss, I probably won't even try.

Re:Important to note

[Tablizer]

Sounds like stupid college students working at Best Buy getting a monthly prize for signing people up for MSN.

Good, those who lost a job from AOL now have a place to use the same "sales" skills.

Re:Important to note

[Vegeta99]

Except, of course, if the gift card got sold, right?

Re:Important to note

[phildawg]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I was instructed by management and actively participating in this many times per day. We were instructed to use confusion tactics and even click through options on the touchpad and also we were instructed to act as if something messed up and they needed to slide their credit card twice. Once was for the MSN activation, a few minutes later, oops looks like it didn't work, you need to slide your CC again to finish up this payment.

Why did they do this? First it was one of the major things tracked by the company on a PC sold vs MSN accounts setup. The company earned 25 dollars on the bottom line for every sign up and this of course was pure profit. If a store was not at least at a 50% attachment, with goals of 75-90%, our supervisors would be fired, and management could even be replaced. We had to get the sign ups per corporate, however, we were supposed to get the 75% goal the legit way. I'm sorry, but exactly how is that possible? Our strategy did not come from store managers, but was actually district wide, and believe to be regional and company wide. How were stores hitting 90-95% attachment ratios? The only people who couldn't be tricked were those not paying with a credit card, so you couldn't get 100%.

Oh and MS was COMPLETELY against this behavior and caught on to it. What they began doing is offering full refunds to customers who had never actually logged in and used the surface. They also modified the Terms with Best Buy and we would no longer earn our cut if the customers never signed up. Our solution? Simple, a single terminal window with a manual connection, and at the end of the night spending approximately 20 minutes to log on every single MSN activation that had been done that day.

Best Buy can burn in hell. I cannot believe I let my ethics be compromised by this sorry piece of crap company, but I needed my paycheck and I was a Yes Man. If you weren't a Yes Man at Best Buy, you were a Fired Man. To many, that's a pretty scary thing when you are self supporting yourself through college. It's easy to have Ethics when Mommy and Daddy will pay for your school, pay your bills, and take care of you. Not everybody is so lucky and not everybody wants to quit their job and look for another. Most saw it as an ends to a means and we would only have to do it for a couple of years until we could get real jobs.

Re:Important to note

[Anonymous Coward]

So that's how I lost my birthday money :(

Re:Important to note

[CodeBuster]

Excuse me, but isn't that fraud?

Re:Important to note

[ejdmoo]

Yup.

Re:Important to note

[gstoddart]

Just because the summary was so scarce on details: this has nothing to do with computers, OEMS, Windows, or OS bundling. It's not that same old story again.

This is about signing people up for MSN without their permission.

Sounds like stupid college students working at Best Buy getting a monthly prize for signing people up for MSN. Doesn't sound like a giant corporate scam. It also doesn't sound like this involves Microsoft at all. I've read the same story online, but replace Microsoft with Comcast (Cable or HSI) or DirecTV

Except, that exactly one paragraph before you started quoting, we see this little nugget:

Under the joint venture, Microsoft invested $200 million in Best Buy in April 2000, and agreed to promote the company's online store through its Internet access service, MSN. In turn, Best Buy agreed to promote MSN in its stores.

So, this isn't just overzealous college kids. This was a formal business arrangement between Microsoft and Best Buy to do exactly that.

Microsoft paid Best Buy money so that they would promote MSN, which apparently involved handing out the credit card information of people who purchased PCs from Best Buy back to Microsoft so that when this "free trial" ended, Microsoft would be able to bill the people for the subscription service.

It can't possibly be legal for two businesses to engage in a practice whereby one of them gets the financial information of customers for billing purposes without the knowledge and consent of the customer -- that's just crazy. If I buy a sofa from a furniture store, there is NO defensible reason for the manufacturer of the sofa to ever see my credit card information.

I would say $200 million dollars is more than a little evidence that this did involve Microsoft, and was definitely of a dubious nature. I hope they really get smacked down on this, because if they don't, it establishes on seriously BAD fscking precedent whereby companies can hand out your financial information to their affiliates for billing purposes you didn't consent to. If that doesn't constitute wire fraud, what the hell does? It's not like Microsoft didn't know they were being handed credit card information from someone other than the consumer.

Cheers

Re:Important to note

[Anonymous Coward]

And if Best Buy knew that this kind of fraud was happening and didn't stop it, that would be racketeering. Funny how this stuff all fits together like this.

Re:Important to note

[CrayDrygu]

If it's common enough for a class-action suit, I'd tend to suspect that they're at the very least strongly encouraging (entirely informally, of course) their employees to do this.

Only in a roundabout way. What these managers did, encouraging (or demanding) the employees to sign up customers without their consent, is and was very much against the written policies of Best Buy. (I worked there from 2000-2005.)

However, there's a combination of factors that ends up rewarding the managers for breaking the rule. First off, part of their bonus is determined based on the number of signups. Second, their own job performance is based on the ranking of their store against other Best Buy stores in the area. And third, Corporate never really cracks down on this sort of thing until it gets noticed by an outside party.

So, managers in store A cheat and get away with it, putting them at the top of the rankings. Stores B, C, D, and E cheat too, to keep themselves in the top 5. Now, you have to cheat just to keep your job.

So no, Best Buy Corporate doesn't directly encourage or condone this behavior. But they created and support an environment and culture which virtually demands it.

Re:Important to note

[DavidShor]

That is fascinating. How do you propose that Best Buy creates a mechanism that simultaneously gives managers an incentive to perform, and keeps them from committing costly law violations?

Re:Important to note

[HappySmileMan]

And if Best Buy knew that this kind of fraud was happening and didn't stop it, that would be racketeering. Funny how this stuff all fits together like this. WOW, it's almost like the legal system was structured so that people would get convicted and punished for crimes they commited. Or maybe this is just an isolated case of this happening?

Re:Important to note

[JoelKatz]

"How do you propose that Best Buy creates a mechanism that simultaneously gives managers an incentive to perform, and keeps them from committing costly law violations?"

Four tools do this:

1) Set policy. That is, make it absolutely clear what is and is not permitted. Be clear and consistent.

2) Create incentives not just for most sales but also for fewest complaints and best compliance with the rules.

3) Audit. Call up customers who buy things like extended warranties and ask them if they knew they were buying them. Make sure the rules are followed.

4) Fix problems when they are discovered. If this means changing the policy, change the policy. If this means finding new ways to ensure compliance with existing policy, find them. If you have to fire people, do that.

It's not easy, but it's not *that* hard. In this case, there's a blurry line between just saying "Oh, you get six months free MSN but you have to pay for it after that let me just set that up for you." and "Do you want a free six month trial of MSN? There's no fee if you cancel."

And if you think that even that's not enough disclosure, then *you* tell the managers what must be disclosed. That decision has to be made as store policy, not by each manager or salesman. IMO, nothing but "Would you like a free six month trial of MSN. Your credit card will be billed automatically if you do not cancel within six months" is good enough.

Re:Important to note

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note that kdawson actually wrote the summary, not I. Mine was probably a bit LESS informative; I remember a bit of editorializing and asking if the RIAA was next in my post.

I thought for once /.ers would actually want to RTFA.

-mcgrew

Definately organized, definately crime

[Cryophallion]

The companies systematically and intentionally look for any advantage, and push the grey area as far as it can go, even into the dark side. Some of this may be "rogue" employees, but their are so many tiers of approval in major companies I find those theories suspect.

I tend to think that if the law fits...

On another note, I'm sure the RIAA was watching this one closely, as they are not looking forward to the RICO suit that was filed against them. Let's hope this is just another decision closer to the destruction of their methods.

Re:Definately organized, definately crime

[Anonymous Coward]

and definitely not "definately"

organized crime

[nurb432]

And this doesnt describe Microsoft, and most of the large corporations of today?

Re:organized crime

[Colin Smith]

Well, the key feature of crime being legality...

Compare with banks and counterfeiters. People think banks are banks because they take deposits, where in fact they're banks because they create money[1], just like a counterfeiter, the only difference really is the legality.

[1] This is why PayPal is not a bank.

Re:organized crime

[the_greywolf]

Correction: Banks hold money, which is printed and distributed by the Federal Reserve. Paypal is a financial institution, not a bank, because they do not handle money in the same sense.

Re:organized crime

[c_forq]

Banks do not create money. They make money by charging higher interest on loans (including credit cards and mortgages) than they give for money deposited with them. They try to give competitive deposits because the more money they have deposited the more money they can give out in (insured) loans, and in turn collect even more interest.

Re:organized crime

[MeNeXT]

If banks just hold money then why are they allowed to lend it out, in some cases up to 9 times?

It's not that his argument was incorrect, it was just over simplified.

Re:organized crime

[mrchaotica]

Correction: Banks hold money, which is printed and distributed by the Federal Reserve.

No, banks create money, in the form of debt. Here's how:

Back in the day, banks did just hold money, as you said. They could loan out money and collect interest on it, but they could only do that for money already in the vault. Then, the rules changed. Now banks can actually give out loans for money they do not have, but still require payment. This creates entirely new money.

Of course, that's a vastly simplified explanation, and I've failed to mention the implications of it... so watch this video instead. It's rather amazing, and sure opened my eyes!

Re:organized crime

[c_forq]

Whoa, what banks are allowed to loan up to 9 times? Last time I looked at the Federal Reserve System, the bank could only take out insurance up to twice what the bank hand, and that amount is a loan that the bank has to pay interest on to the Federal Reserve (albeit a very low interest rate, last I looked I think it was 4 points below prime). After that it is not insured, and very few (if any) banks deal with uninsured loans.

Re:organized crime

[Colin Smith]

Banks do not create money. They make money by charging higher interest on loans Banks do create money when they give loans. It's called Fractional Reserve Banking.

Re:organized crime

[Colin Smith]

Banks hold money, which is printed and distributed by the Federal Reserve. Paypal is a financial institution, not a bank, because they do not handle money in the same sense. No, it's primary the creation of money which differentiates a bank from other financial institutions.

Banks do hold money, however that isn't what differentiates them from Paypal. Paypal's money happens to be electronic. Most of the bank's money is also electronic, only about 5% is paper and metal.

The difference is that banks are permitted to give loans of money, and in doing so they create money from nothing.

Re:organized crime

[Colin Smith]

Each individual bank loans the cash out once. The reserve ratio means it can circulate an additional 9 times.

Re:organized crime

[MeNeXT]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank

It's just the way it is...

Boo Hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

>Most corporations "cannot risk the possibility of an award of treble damages" or the "reputational injury" of being sued under a law "associated with racketeers and mobsters," they added.

They should have thought of that BEFORE they embarked on their little cooperative enterprise...

Feds can't be bothered to prosecute...

[Shag]

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act was designed to fight organized crime, but in recent years more than 100 times as many civil as federal RICO cases have been filed.

Well, if the feds can't be bothered to prosecute most things that they should... that's how the numbers end up, right?

Re:Feds can't be bothered to prosecute...

[MaskedSlacker]

Oh, if only I had mod points.

Re:Feds can't be bothered to prosecute...

[ari_j]

I'm just concerned that the dichotomy is now civil vs. federal. Here, I thought that (a) federal courts also heard civil cases and (b) it was civil vs. criminal. Did something change today?

Hang the sons of bitches! People power!

[jihadist]

+5, insightful

Isn't this what we always complain about?

[speaker of the truth]

Isn't creating a law with the purpose of using it for one thing (going after commercial pirates) and then using it for something else (going after people who pirate for no money and instead personal uses) something we hate here at slashdot? And yet we have another clear example of it and hail it as if it were the best thing to ever happen, simply by misappropriating the term "organized crime." Isn't that something else we complain about as well (after pirates don't steal, they simply infringe).

I guess the end truly does justify the means. At least here at /.

Re:Isn't this what we always complain about?

[shaitand]

'Isn't creating a law with the purpose of using it for one thing (going after commercial pirates) and then using it for something else (going after people who pirate for no money and instead personal uses) something we hate here at slashdot?'

First of all this has nothing to do with piracy. Second, the law was designed to go after those who use an organizational structure to pursue crime. It might have been the mob who was in the sights of the government when passing these laws but there are more so called 'legitimate' corporate conspiracies than 'illegitimate' and the 'legitimate' crime syndicates need to be brought to justice just as the organized crime of old.

Although the whole piracy reference was a nice plea to emotion I think you'll find that Slashdotters don't feel those laws are being used inappropriately but instead feel that laws which create a class of users that could be called pirates are bad regardless of how they are applied. Copyright and Patent laws have outlived their usefulness, anything that supports that archaic and obsolete system or its enforcement is bad.

Re:Isn't this what we always complain about?

[PPH]

RICO was created to go after organizations who engage in patterns of racketeering. The problem with our legal system is that we must enforce laws equally. I think the actual phrase is 'equal protection under the law'.

The problem is that we can't differentiate between the activities of some corporations and the classic Mafia. Unlike the example you posited, basing enforcement on the profit motive, often mainstream corporations derive much more profit from their activities than the Mob ever did. So that's not an effective test.

The problem with defining 'organized crime' is that there is no way to define it to fit our stereotype of a bunch of thugs of a certain ethnic persuasion and have it pass the smell test constitutionally.

Re:Isn't this what we always complain about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. We hate using laws to prosecute things that aren't crimes. (i.e. copyright infringement not-for-profit is not a *crime* it is a civil matter). We also urge people to consider what a law *could* be used for instead of what people *say* it will be used for. You seem to have combined the two, missing an exception.

Re:Isn't this what we always complain about?

[Bonker]

What you may be missing is that despite the fact that Microsoft's actions are part of a business plan, they're still organized and criminal. The term has not been misappropriated at all.

Just because the RICO statutes were conceived with the idea of fighting mafia families does not mean they don't apply to all organized criminals.

Re:Isn't this what we always complain about?

[conteXXt]

Which, on the surface sounds like a "Beautiful Thing".

If you can't tell the difference between "a bunch of nicely dressed gentlemen of a certain ethnic persuasion"
doing X

and

legal, licensed, nicely dressed (albeit with bad brutally bad haircuts) officers of a public company
doing X

I think that finally affirmative action is working :-)

It really shouldn't matter how bad your haircut is. A crook is a crook!

Re:Isn't this what we always complain about?

[r_jensen11]

Copyright and Patent laws have outlived their usefulness, anything that supports that archaic and obsolete system or its enforcement is bad.

Or it could just be that we're becoming increasingly larger freeloaders and have a harder time understanding the concept that we don't need everything now. Hell, just look at the numbers of people in credit card debt. Compare that to a generation or two ago, and you're seeing a dramatic difference in consumer habits. Personally, I think that copyright laws are not outdated. If a team I'm on creates an icon like Mickey Mouse, I wouldn't want others to use said icon without my consent. If they did, they could destroy the value of the icon. If you think that a copyright holder is acting too much in their self-interest in terms of profits, then just boycott them. Remember, just because something's out there doesn't mean you have to have it.

Re:Isn't this what we always complain about?

[Tablizer]

The problem with defining 'organized crime' is that there is no way to define it to fit our stereotype of a bunch of thugs of a certain ethnic persuasion and have it pass the smell test constitutionally.

As somebody pointed out, the threat or implication of violence is what usually makes the difference. Tricking somebody into buying something they don't want is a much smaller level than leaving dead horse parts in front of a mom-pop store that doesn't pay "protection fees".

Why is a class-action lawsuit not sufficient to go after excess sales pressure?

Re:Isn't this what we always complain about?

[jthill]

Ok, let's talk about Mickey Mouse.

Nobody who thought up Mickey Mouse is still working.

The people who currently own the copyright had absolutely nothing to do with his creation.

The people who currently own the copyright paid for twenty-eight years of copyright.

What they say they own now, they did not create, did not subsidize, did not pay for.

But they want to raise their kids on it.

I think it's dangerous for their defenders to use words like "freeloader". It might get people thinking.

Re:Isn't this what we always complain about?

[stinerman]

And as many others have said, why does it have to be the threat of physical violence? Isn't threatening financial ruin just as bad? Guido might break your knee caps if you don't pay The Don tomorrow, but Corporation X can screw with your credit report and other financials as well as sue you into oblivion if you don't pay up. Financial "violence" is just as damaging as physical violence, especially when some people won't hire you if you have a bad credit history.

Congress wrote the law with organized crime in mind. If businesses are running afoul of RICO statutes, then they are most likely acting like organized criminals -- at least close enough to acting like them that the language describes their activities closely.

Re:Isn't this what we always complain about?

[Ignis Flatus]

IANAL, but IIRC, RICO was actually created to make it easier to convict 'known' criminals without having a lot of hard evidence of them being directly involved in a crime. Sometimes, the 'good guys' use this for good reasons. But other times, they abuse the power. As it turns out, the government doesn't appreciate anyone except themselves abusing power, so they are obviously upset about it (as are their largest campaign contributors).

Seems that the law of unintended consequences has consequences. I think it's pretty funny, myself. If you're going to send a man to prison, do it the right way, show what he actually did. Don't be lazy.

Re:Isn't this what we always complain about?

[fluffy99]

Close. It was intended to nail known criminals for which they could only prove a repeated pattern of committing smaller crimes.

Re:Isn't this what we always complain about?

[dryeo]

If a team I'm on creates an icon like Mickey Mouse, I wouldn't want others to use said icon without my consent. If they did, they could destroy the value of the icon. That is what trademark law is for. Notice that trademarks do not expire. (Though you do have to defend them or you lose them)

Re:Isn't this what we always complain about?

[shaitand]

'If a team I'm on creates an icon like Mickey Mouse, I wouldn't want others to use said icon without my consent.'

Of course you wouldn't. There are lots of things I wouldn't want or would want, unfortunately, not every call is mine to make.

'If they did, they could destroy the value of the icon.'

The icon has innate value, we are discussing the artificial value that is given in the form of copyright.

'If you think that a copyright holder is acting too much in their self-interest in terms of profits, then just boycott them.'

Or I could recognize that there is no particular reason to grant them a copyright in the first place.

'Remember, just because something's out there doesn't mean you have to have it.'

Remember just because you had an idea doesn't mean you own it or have the right to prevent anyone else from having it.

You do not have a RIGHT to your ideas or to prevent others from benefiting from them. Ideas are not property, copying is the building block that defines life and occurs at every level of life and nature. In a world without copying you couldn't produce new skin cells, a baby couldn't inherit its mother's eyes, and only one family would live in houses. Ideas are also not unique, in fact all ideas are the inevitable result of given input. No matter who you assassinated a printing press type device would be have been created, operating systems would have been developed, a pointing and selection device, languages developed, etc. There is nothing natural about copyright, copyright and patent is not needed for development to occur and the world won't grind to a halt without them. It is natural and good for me to look around me, see what is good and try to duplicate that good in my own life, it doesn't stop being natural and right when technology allows me to duplicate those good things perfectly and effortlessly.

It is not selfish to see good things and want them if I can have them without taking from others (as opposed to stealing which deprives others of their things). It is selfish to try to control others by preventing access to ideas that benefit us all.

Re:Isn't this what we always complain about?

[mo^]

All them people doing X sounds like a very beautiful thing if somewhat 90's.

Re:Isn't this what we always complain about?

[PPH]

If Congress had intended RICO to apply only in cases with threats of physical violence, they would have added language to that effect to the bill.

wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this around the same time period that Best Buy was pushing emachines and offering them for pretty cheap if you signed up for MSN? I wonder how many people just didn't actually read the contract, didn't care, et cetera. I'm sure more than a few really just didn't understand, but I'd be willing to bet more of them were just cheap (and then lazy and didn't cancel their trial period).

Re:something fishy...

[Goldberg's Pants]

Never fails. Anti-Microsoft story... Ridiculous porn troll in first few comments.

Bet the IP address resolves to the Redmond area.

Sounds Reasonable to Me

[AK Marc]

The 9th Circuit's decision would "convert a statute designed to eradicate organized crime into a tool to induce settlements from legitimate businesses," the companies said. Most corporations "cannot risk the possibility of an award of treble damages" or the "reputational injury" of being sued under a law "associated with racketeers and mobsters," they added.

Then don't conspire with other companies to screw your customers. The deal was a "conspiracy" to cross-promote each other's brands. It probably included financial incentives to Best Buy stores or employees that signed up MSN users, and so the users were set up for payment without their consent. I would guess that Microsoft didn't suggest or condone such tactics, but they were the ones paying the people that did it.

And what is the difference with Vista then ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like collusion to me. Almost can't by a computer without Vista installed. Your paying for it just to find out how much of a pain in the ass it is going to be to uninstall it and install something else. Ya sure you may be able to get you money back but why do you have to go threw these hoops in the first place?

I'll sell you a hamburger and secret french fries

[Token_Internet_Girl]

Sounds like stupid college students working at Best Buy getting a monthly prize for signing people up for MSN. Doesn't sound like a giant corporate scam.

Excuse me, but Bullshit. I worked for Best Buy's "Geek Squad" several years ago, they have corporate people directly create the incentive programs so that stupid college students will sign up customers no matter what it takes, for the sole purpose of driving sales. It's a disheartening trend I've seen in several companies I've worked for, including AOL. They know it goes on, they constantly hound their employees to "sell every customer or its your job," and it's finally coming around to bite them in the ass. Huzzah's are in order!

Racketeer or not?

[buss_error]

mcgrew (sm62704) writes with news that the Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by Microsoft and a unit of Best Buy to dismiss a lawsuit alleging violation of racketeering laws. This means the class-action complaint can go to trial. The case was filed in civil court and the companies, with the US Chamber of Commerce behind them, wanted the Supreme Court to put the brakes on the expanding use of RICO laws in civil filings. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act was designed to fight organized crime, but in recent years more than 100 times as many civil as federal RICO cases have been filed.

.

If you don't think that Microsoft isn't doing all it can, roping in anyone it can force, jigger, or bribe to join them in their little dance in hell, they should read http://catb.org/~esr/halloween/index.html The Halloween Documents with an open mind.

It's quite evident what MicroSoft wants. What isn't so clear is what the rest of us get out of it.

i call bullshit on you

[bennini]

Sounds like stupid college students working at Best Buy getting a monthly prize for signing people up for MSN. Doesn't sound like a giant corporate scam.

As a previous employee at Circuit City, I can attest that this sort of thing is generally encouraged by store managers. Most of the time employees of these sorts of stores (Best Buy and CC) no longer make commision on sales of extended warranties and the ilk (they did in the past) but they are still strongly pushed to get people to sign up for these crappy deals. Now, you may never be directly told "get X people to sign up each month or you will be fired", but you will definitely notice when your hours get cut or your manager starts breathing down your neck each time you're talking to a customer.

I disagree with your comment about this not being a "giant corporate scam". The top execs at companies like CC and BestBuy are the ones that design, implement and sign the contracts that enable these worthless "offers." They do so strictly because of money and they in turn push their demands down onto regional managers which then breath down the store manager's throats. Its one big chain reaction of pressure to sell what isn't needed and in the end the customer suffers. The employees that push this crap don't give a shit if the person actually needs it or not.

I remember some of my buddies laughing about how they tricked old grandmas into buying all sorts of useless, overpriced peripherals for digital cameras. Their managers loved it cuz it helped them reach their sales target (and in turn get bigger bonuses).
 
Its a huge scam. The companies involved know it, the employees of the companies know it...and finally, now, the customers are starting to know it as well.

ps. i simply installed stereos in peoples cars so i never had to deal with managers' bullshit, thank god..but it was quite sad watching it go down.

Re:i call bullshit on you

[flyingfsck]

"Ya want frieez wizzaaat?" Same principle.

Re:i call bullshit on you

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, you may never be directly told "get X people to sign up each month or you will be fired", but you will definitely notice when your hours get cut or your manager starts breathing down your neck each time you're talking to a customer.

As a former Best Buy employee, I could not have said it better myself. Working at that place made you go home feeling dirty... But at least I saved 30% on my Bose sound system!

Re:i call bullshit on you

[darkfire5252]

I used to work at an H.H. Gregg (southeastern regional consumer electronics/appliances), and we put Best Buy and Circuit City to shame. Every single month, 15% of your net sales _had_ to be extended warranties (though we called them MSEs or some crap). If you didn't hit that goal, 1st month you get a warning. Second month, you get fired. No questions, it was made clear that they'd terminate the best salesman there if he didn't hit his numbers. Talk about pushing people to buy crap, the store honors and jokes always went to the guy who sold a $50 warranty on a $100 VCR...

Re:i call bullshit on you

[GuyverDH]

Not quite...

Want fries with that? Person thinks... Do I like fries? yes/no? Am I hungry enough for fries? yes/no? makes a decision.

Would you like the replacement insurance on this item that's already covered by a manufacturers warranty? If you do, you can deal with us if it breaks within a year, if you don't you can deal with the manufacturer if it breaks within a year. If you get it, we won't ask any questions, we'll just replace it. C'mon - it's a great deal. Buy it. Please. Pretty please. Pretty please with sugar on it.

Person thinks... Will this item work longer than a year? If not, I can get a new one if it dies, or doesn't work right or isn't updated to the latest standard, will dealing with the factory be an issue? Can I find a contact for the manufacturer? Oh hell, it's only a 3rd of the price... Okay - I'll take it.

High pressure sales tactics... Not quite the same as "Want fries with that?"

Re:i call bullshit on you

[Anonymous Coward]

If your buddies laugh at defrauding grandmothers, you need a better class of buddies.

No comment?

[ealar dlanvuli]

"Microsoft does not comment about pending litigation?"

This means Balmer's linux patent threats contain no litigation that is pending?

Re:No comment?

[adminstring]

...and when the threats stop, you know something bad is going to happen!

Re:something fishy...

[Cryophallion]

Awww, did someone not like your story?

First the other conspiracy theorists say that you are crazy (and crazy to them is out of this world...), but now the people on slashdot, who should know good prose (not to mention porn) when they see it (being nerds and all), call out your story for being a waste of time and a possible technique by the company in question to change the topic and make the community instead of you look like fools.

There is a reason we call it anonymous coward.

Thanks for trying to waste our time. Too bad the mods got to you first. So, you failed again. You may now go to bed unsatisfied and unfulfilled.

Re:I'll sell you a hamburger and secret french fri

[Ethanol-fueled]

I worked for a company which had a contract to perform warranty service for Best Buy laptops. Much of the work was bullshit: OS reinstalls, missing drivers, virii/spyware. I'd say 30-40% of the freshmeat was there because of software problems which could have(should have?) been fixed by the geek squad. Many of the techs didn't have A+ certificates to wave around, but we got the job done. I'm not slamming the Geek Squad so much as I am slamming the BB management for being so naive and inefficient. Though I shouldn't complain because it was because of the BB contract that I was able to pay the billz.

Re:something fishy...

[said213]

Have you ever considered posting anonymously, or is this just a temporary account for you?

Slippery Slope laws

[Tablizer]

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act was designed to fight organized crime, but in recent years more than 100 times as many civil as federal RICO cases have been filed.

This is why the Patriot Act and other 9/11-influenced laws make me nervous. Unchecked, the government has historically ended up abusing such powers.

Re:Slippery Slope laws

[ScrewMaster]

Slippery slope? We're way past that point, my friend. The Patriot Act, the RICO Act, and others like it qualify more as a "steep incline facing a bottomless pit."

Abu ghraib

[Tablizer]

Sounds kind of like the Abu ghraib scandal. Managers (ranking officers) dropped gazillion hints that they wanted to "up the pressure", but never made any formal statement or paper trail. It's all wink-wink. In the end, it was tough to bust the managers, and only peons got jail time. Sure, the staff was stupid, but managers should be held to a higher standard. They're supposed to know better than newbies.

This is not the rebate for a 3 year deal thing.

[Joe The Dragon]

This is not the rebate for a 3 year deal thing. It is scanning a free MSN disk that you may not even need or use but after the free trial even if you never use it you start to get billed for it.

Re:This is not the rebate for a 3 year deal thing.

[RobertM1968]

We'll see when all is said and done. There were quite a lot of plans... with and without rebate. Some with free months, some without. And systems that came with an auto-activate-just-provide-your-credit-card-number-free-(trial)-MSN-dont-forget-to-cancel.

Really, do you think all these people had MSN accounts that (will be shown to have been used and) they didnt provide any of the info necessary?

Employees at most retailers are warned that for them to fraudulently sign someone up for MSN, AOL, etc is a crime punishable by up to 10 years in jail AND up to $10,000 in fines (per incident). You see, it's credit card fraud (since that was the instrument used to "fraudulently" sign people up). Before computer stuff, I worked for CitiCorp (Hauppauge, NY - when they were based there) in their card services division. Contrary to popular belief... a person can be charged, and imposed some portion of those penalties for ANY proven credit card fraud. So, we're looking at an issue that is supposed to be how large? How many life sentences for those involved? And no one noticed till how much later? And MS is at fault how? And Best Buy is at fault how? (the employee would get charged - unless its Best Buy's policy... I want to see the evidence that supports that)... and thus, as "widespread" as they are claiming this is, is this some sort of employee conspiracy?

C'mon... this suit is bogus. Best Buy and MS will win, or settle small to end this cheaply with no criminal/credit fraud charges against anyone who could have been remotely responsible for this occurring (assuming it really did).

Show me the money!

[Torodung]

Successful RICO claims provide for triple damage awards in civil cases. (emph. added) I don't care what firm is bringing this case to trial, if there's a law that involves automatic triple damages, then they're going to try the case under that law, especially if it's a crap shoot to begin with.

Basically, this is taking automatic 3:1 odds on a longshot, just by choosing the right kind of tort. That's why they're suing under RICO.

Follow the money. If they can shoehorn in RICO, they will. They'd be, under conventional legal ethical standards, foolish and derelict not to.

--
Toro

Re:Show me the money!

[This_Is_My_Happening]

I recall reading somewhere that in a civil case the plaintiff can't get triple damages unless the defendant has already been found guilty in a criminal RICO case. IANAL though, and I may not be remembering correctly.

Perhaps this is what happened

[Tablizer]

the Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by Microsoft and a unit of Best Buy to dismiss a lawsuit alleging violation of racketeering laws.

The Justices reversed their leniency when the defendants tried to hard-sell them MSN.

Speaking from employee experience...

[Trerro]

I made the mistake of working for a Best Buy right after college. I can't comment specifically on the MSN thing, as I didn't see THAT particular scam, but from what I DID see, it would not surprise me in the slightest if employees were trained to at best, be extremely misleading, and at worst, outright lie and cheat the customer out of money.

One common package deal we were supposed to try to push was the 'advanced security setup' or something like that, I can't remember the exact name. The service in theory sounded fine - you sold the customer an AV program and a spyware blocker, explained the point of each, set it up, ran the install, updated definitions, ran windows update for all current security patches, etc - all the standard security precautions. The customer of course would be billed the price of the 2 programs, plus a fee for the service of I think 20 or 30 bucks. Ignoring the fact that Avast (free) is just as effective as Norton, it didn't sound like a terribly unreasonable deal. The user bought software he was probably going to need anyway, and paid a small fee to make sure that the basic security precautions were taken.

There was one slight problem. Best buy is not exactly a place where you build your own custom box. Anything you get from there is going to be a pre-built machine, almost always including some pre-installed software. In nearly every case, that included a copy of an AV program, usually with a 30 or 90 day trial, with a $10-15 subscription fee needed after that - not the 50 bucks you'd pay for a new copy (which of course, also had the fee, just after a year.)

Here's where the scam comes in. The job of the salesman is to inform the user that while yes, your machine will come with AV protection, it'll only last 1 or 3 months, and after that, you won't be covered any more, so you really ought to buy our full protection plan, where you'll have everything done for you.

In case you didn't fill in the blank on that, the job was to convince the customer to pay you to uninstall their already active AV program and replace it with another, charging them for both comparable software (in some cases, THE EXACT SAME PROGRAM) that they already had, and a service that had already been done!

As for the 'there's no commission' argument, that's BS as well. The employee doesn't get commission, but his SUPERVISOR does. So they have you use the fact that YOU aren't on commission (which IS true) as part of your sales pitch.

Also, BB has a very interesting way of making sure all staff participate in these scams. You're on quota. They'll never call it a quota of course - it's a sales goal, a revenue objective, a team target - whatever, they'll call it anything but a quota. When you don't meet the quota, you aren't fired. In fact, there's no penalty at all, other than the expression of disappointment, and strong encouragement to do better as a team. Unfortunately, it seems there's just not enough in the budget this week to cover your department, and everyone's hours need to be cut back. Oh, and if your hours are cut to oh, say... 4 or 8 per week and you can't possibly pay rent, well, if it's a such a problem, you're an at will employee, and hey, nothing is stopping you from quitting. Oh, and if you're thinking of getting a second job, well, you you signed a thing when you were hired that said your available hours would not change in your first X months (3 or 6, I forget), so if you choose to violate that, while, you'll have to fired for that of course.

Funny thing, I don't think they've ever fired someone for not selling enough, they can proudly announce that - and happily do as they sell you stuff, and it's even true!... sort of. As for that absurdly high turnover rate, well, hey, it's retail, and not everyone can stay with it.

I didn't last long there before I quit in disgust at the total disregard for ethics they have.

Is convincing someone to buy software they already own racketeering? Maybe.
Is it outright FRAUD? Yes.

Re:Speaking from employee experience...

[filterban]

I saw some of the same things you outlined while I worked at CompUSA. I used to work behind the upgrade counter where memory and hard disk drives were sold. CompUSA sold extended warranties and they ranked employees each week based on how many you sold.

I was instructed to ask every customer whether they would like to purchase an extended warranty. No matter if they were buying a product that already had a lifetime warranty (e.g. RAM).

I fought back and never once tried to push those ripoff extended warranties on customers. I think I sold on average one per week to people who asked about them (but I was honest about the manufacturer warranties). Every week my name was at the bottom of the ranking list. Every week my manager would talk to me about getting more people to buy the warranties. And every week I would explain that it usually doesn't make sense to buy an extended warranty on RAM/HDD/video cards, because by the time the manufacturer's warranty is out, one that is twice as fast/twice the size/etc will cost the same.

Re:something fishy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mom?

M$ is NOT a monopoly...

[TheRealZeus]

...according to a country that is NOT run by business and political pay-offs.

Look in the lawyers' pockets.

[NotQuiteReal]

This is a class action lawsuit, so if they win, the legal team will get millions of actual dollars and the class participants will get coupons for use at Best Buy and MSN.

MS Violence threats =

[J_Omega]

Chairs, man! Chairs!

Using a gift card in that manner breaks the law

[osssmkatz]

you are almost ashamed to admit it?! You stole people's money. You violated the *law*. You purchased a gift card (at least as far as the credit issuer is concerned, it technically costs nothing, I'll admit) and then charged something to it. That is a fraudulent charge, and is equalivent to identity theft, although you'd never be prosecuted for that specifically.. more like credit card fraud.

--Sam

Re:Using a gift card in that manner breaks the law

[ejdmoo]

Slashdot convention is when you say "you" you're addressing the parent who you replied to.

That having been said, I didn't write that, I quoted it. So, uh, go complain to the anonymous guy from Consumerist.

Rockeetering?!?!

[Matteo522]

It's about time we caught those guys. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/03/23

They caught ne with this one

[aegl]

I bought a 19" LCD monitor from Best Buy while they were running this scam and they signed me up for msn.com just the way the article says. No disclosure to me beyond telling me that there was a free 6 month subscription CD in the box. I recycled the CD as I had no interest in the MSN subscription. Six months later the first monthly charge appeared on my credit card bill.

I called MSN and asked what was going on. They said that I'd signed up at Best Buy. I said "oh no I didn't". After a couple of iterations of this the guy on the phone agreed to cancel the subscription and refund my money.

Assuming the lawyers take $30M of the $100M judgement, and assuming that there were 100,000 customers (complete random guess ... the article only says "thousands of customers"), then my share ought to be $700. That would actually be quite cool. But I bet that I'll just end up with a $10 coupon good for discounts on Microsoft Vista :-(

Re:I'll sell you a hamburger and secret french fri

[mcrbids]

You've worked for Best Buy and AOL? Brother, I feel your pain. Next you'll be telling us that you also worked as a telemarketer?

It's time for you to consider a professional upgrade.

Seriously.

It's time to invest in yourself - develop some actual, salable skills! Whether it's flying an airplane, programming a computer, admin for a Unix box, or drilling holes in teeth and filling them back up - salable skills are the difference between jobs that suxorz (like what you've been trolling) and jobs that pay well and come with appreciation, rather than contempt.

Get a degree, take some online classes, whatever. But if you value your happiness, DO IT!

Re:I'll sell you a hamburger and secret french fri

[CodeBuster]

Sales is really a soul sucking job. I knew from an early age that I didn't want to be in sales. It seems like the best salesmen, or at least the ones who earn the highest commisions or advance into management most quickly, are invariably the ones who are most dishonest, cheat the most people, and are generally sociopathic in their dealings with underlings.

For example, one of my previous coworkers, who was the best salesmen I have ever known, had sidelines in loan sharking (thousand(s) of percent yearly interest) and illegal drugs which probably tripled his income, at least, over what he was making at his legitimate job. He had a forceful personality and was good at pushing marks in high pressure sales situations, but he was also the most amoral person that I have ever known. I lost track of him when I changed jobs, but I have no doubt that he is still wheeling and dealing in anything that will turn a profit.

They signed you up for MSN without permission

[Anonymous Coward]

You went in bought a computer and came out with an MSN subscription you didn't ask for and weren't told about, until you noticed the charges on your card in later months.

Well, it's not alwas that way ..

[cheros]

I do sales - however, I have my own company. And we sell because we listen to the customer, and given them what they need. Not more, not less.

Having said that, the very reason I started on my own was precisely because I was working for a big bucks consultancy and I was forced to choose between committing outright fraud by charging a customer for days I didn't work on their project or taking a hit on the hours I clocked and thus on my salary and job prospects. Such fraud is extremely common and is encouraged by incentive systems which don't appear to do anything but mouth ethics instead of enforcing them.

Given the type of work I was doing ethics were quite important, so in the end I gave up the fight and resigned. I cannot and will not do something that dishonest, and the irony is that clients now want me PRECISELY because I don't, and I earn quite a bit more because of it. Client have problems finding people they can trust, and the level of mistrust of grey amorphous consultancies is rising - more or less proving my point (having said that, I may be picking up skewed statistics because I keep picking up cases where clients go screwed and found out).

I'm straying offtopic here, but if you really want to kick the shins of, say, a bank or a consultancy in Europe you should ask them how many hours staff file on their timesheets. If it looks like a clean 37.5 or 40 hours a week you know that you can get them for falsifying primary records, and they do that to avoid the EU working hours directive. They're all at it..

Back to the topic: not all sales people are dishonest, but it depends VERY much on the incentive model and enforcement of ethics. You have to keep into account human nature. A sales person who doesn't have a drive to sell is useless, but you have to reign in the nature of the beast.

And be WILLING to do that..

Well nobody except the entire legal world

[SmallFurryCreature]

I am afraid you are very very wrong, and you should think a slashdot reader would know better. Copyright infringement is frequently called organized crime, people who make fake products are said to be organized crime, despite the fact that these "criminals" rarely if ever deal with violence.

The only qualifier for organized crime is in the words itself. Organized and crime. Yes the Rico act is meant to deal with more then just a handfull of bruglers and a fence who decide to operate together but make no mistake if you set up a group of people to commit a crime, you are organized and will be called as such by everyone in the legal proffesions except your lawyer.

Think about it like this. Blackmail, what really is the difference between forcing you to give me money through threathening your life or ruining your life to the point that you may commit suicide?

The idea that organized crime is just thugs who go around beating up people for money is just ridiculous. It really just is nothing more then criminals who organize.

Not really

[SmallFurryCreature]

This is a case of the current administation NOT wanting the law to be applied to their cronies.

When a law is introduced it should be applied equally to everyone. If you introduce a speeding law then police cars too can be ticketed for speeding (although the police do have the right to speed without lights or sirens but only when necesarry for their work) and if the state then refuses to prosecute police officers who speed, they are wrong.

The RICO act is meant to be used against the organisation of crime (most crime is a one person affair) and that includes crimes that the powers that be might not consider to be crimes.

In a way what is happening here is that what happened in america when crimes against blacks were not prosecuted.

If this case holds up in court, and so far it has, then you should really ask why this case was not brought by the public prosecutor.

But this is not an unjust application of the law. This is exactly what the law was created for, just that some people don't want it to be used this way because they are guilty of it, or bought by the people guilty of it.

Ask yourselve what the term organized crime means, it ain't hard. Now do you think that the companies involved may have committed a crime? Did they organize it? Bingo. Organized crime. Stop watching mafia movies and join the real world. The biggest criminals don't need guns.

You worked at best buy AND aol?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Hand in your slashdot UID RIGHT NOW traitor! Geez gods, talk about covorting with the enemy. What next, you run Vista and like it? You hunt penguins?

Re:something fishy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Never fails. First post porn in an MS story and conspiracy theorists blame it on Microsoft. First post porn in a linux story and conspiracy theorists blame it on Microsoft.

Triple damages aren't even enough

[kingsack]

One of the fundamental problems with the American justice system is the extreme weighting in favor of the econmomicly advantaged party. This allows parties such as Microsoft, Best Buy and innumerable others to intentionally break the law, knowing that the price to pursue a legal remedy not to mention the time required will bankrupt any ordinary citizen. The system really needs to be revised to compensate such litigants for not only damages and court costs but also lost wages, travel expenses, attorney's fees, costs for expert witnesses, ie.. any and every expense related to pursuing such cases where they prevail. This should be the absolute minimum judgement with triple and punative damages in addition where willful wrongdoing can be shown. In conjunction with this the penalties for mailicious prosecution (ie. filing baseless lawsuits) needs to be equally severe. Litigants such as the RIAA, MPAA, etc... as well as anyone who engages in such behavior should be unable to just "drop the complaint" without paying any and all such costs and once again being exposed to severe damage awards. Frankly I am intrigued by the Swedish system that imposes penalties based on the affluence of the convicted party. If the penalty to a corporation for engaging in such behavior was the loss of say 10% of gross revinue they would pay alot more attention to complying with the law and engaging in such scams would become indcredibly risky to them.

Re:it's called ...

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell does the First Post get "moderated" Redundant? .... idiots

Congratulations

[Anonymous Coward]

You managed to use 61 words without actually saying a god damned thing. That takes talent. You've won the Pointless Post of the Year Award!

Ding! We have a winner

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, know how to follow the money.

Since there are plenty of replies the other way

[280Z28]

I'll go ahead and play the devil's advocate.

Microsoft and Best Buy agreed to promote each other's services as a trade. This is fine, and common. Ads are everywhere, and in retail stores is certainly no exception. Best Buy promotes things that are created by other companies because that's what they sell. Microsoft paid for additional advertising (ads aren't free you know) by offering advertising in return at the software giant's site.

The MSN service does not sit on a shelf in a box. It's not a book, and it's not something that changes the way a computer looks. It's a service that the customer never sees until they are home. So they sell it by encouraging (embarrassingly) naive purchasers that they want it. "It's a free for 6 months." The fine print says you have to pay when the 6 months are over, and it's right there on the paper.

What happened to TINSTAAFL? Why does every ad have to end in legalese? OF COURSE there are terms & conditions on EVERY "free" offer. Every last damn one. Why should this be an exception. Besides... it's not like the fine print on TV ads is legible. The consumer is responsible for reading over the paperwork with a purchase. If the papers are too long, just leave, don't sign [up for?] something without reading it.

If this was your average customer (which if he bought anything but a stellar once a year deal and bought it for use at home), then the conversation probably went something like this:

[Other conversation...]
Seller: And do you want a free 6 months of the MSN online service?
Buyer: Uhhh... what's that?
S: They offer news, games, and [insert other things they offer, albeit other places offer similar things for cheaper, that's not what they advertise]. *You can always cancel it before then and you don't get charged anything.*
B: Umm... ok...

Naivety is not an excuse in a situation like that. If in fact the seller signed the user up without getting that "uhhh ok" out of the buyer, then this should be handled as such. Since it's not Best Buy's policy to sign people up without mentioning it to them and getting the ok (literally), they should not be held responsible for the actions of an employee acting out of line (hey, they'll never fine out [evilgrin]). They handle situations by firing such employees. Fact: large companies will eventually hire a dishonest worker. Fact: everyone, even dishonest people, start without a criminal record. And if all they do is deceive, maybe they won't get one either. It is absolutely impossible to guarantee that all hires will be the right ones. Ever heard of a provisional employee status?

The person (or people) that need to be held responsible for this are the employees who acted out of line. No one (read: the plaintiffs) these days is willing to accept responsibility themselves (for agreeing to a service without reading the fine print). But they'll gladly say Best Buy must take responsibility for the actions of someone acting against them so they can get a better payout at the end. Plaintiffs: a) stop being moron and read the fine print (or realize things at a store aren't free, durr) or b) sue the employee, not the store.

The general population's notion of responsibility is completely out of whack, and we all see it every day. This actions resulting in this case are likely the direct fault of the plaintiffs, and even if they aren't, they're blaming the wrong target and charging way, way too much.

Re:Since there are plenty of replies the other way

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA! The customers were NOT told about it. They were told the CDs were scanned for "inventory purposes!"

This is why Slashdot is ridiculed

[SIIHP]

"If you replace the threat of physical violence with a threat of legal and financial ruin, they are virtually identical."

I'm sorry, but whoever modded you up is a bigger twit than you are, which is saying a lot.

Please tell me the threat of legal and financial ruin that can be used which is equivalent to having your family executed in front of you.

It fascinates me how the hypocrites here rail against the Patriot Act and other laws being mis-applied, but because of your irrational hatred of MS, you ignore exactly the same kinds of abuses with RICO.

You're pathetic, and no amount of rationalization can change that, including ridiculous comparisons between physical violence (including DEATH) and civil legal trouble (which NEVER includes death).

And there it sits at +5.

The moderation system, and the people who use it this way, are a joke.

Re:This is why Slashdot is ridiculed

[Smidge204]

...do you really believe that shit is still as common as it was in the 20's and 30's? Seriously? You ALSO watch too many movies.

And just to get back on track, you might want to look up the definition of "racketeering" before you spout off about abuse of the RICO act.
=Smidge=

Re:This is why Slashdot is ridiculed

[Angelyne]

You are rather creative in the way you interpret the parent's statement. Or maybe way too literal. No one in their right mind would claim that having your family executed and financial ruins are equivalent. He meant, not doubt, identical in their effectiveness. If you are an average North American with a wife, kids, house, car, debts, the threat of financial ruin would be a very very effective goad. If you have to choose between financial ruin and the life of your family, all of a sudden being ruined sounds likes pretty inconsequential. It's called perspective. However I doubt that any person, faced with their financial doom, will shrug it off and say, at least my family is safe, unless the latter was ever threatened.

Re:This is why Slashdot is ridiculed

[zzsmirkzz]

There are fates worse than death, and they can do all of them.... :)

Re:This is why Slashdot is ridiculed

[SIIHP]

"And just to get back on track, you might want to look up the definition of "racketeering" before you spout off about abuse of the RICO act."

I have. This isn't it.

And you might want to bother to understan WHY the RICO act was instituted. It wasn't for this.

"do you really believe that shit is still as common as it was in the 20's and 30's? "

Do you really believe that using logical fallacies like you did there makes you look like anything other than the pathetic joke I said you were?

The comparison was stupid. Supporting a stupid comparison is even more stupid.

Re:This is why Slashdot is ridiculed

[SIIHP]

"No one in their right mind would claim that having your family executed and financial ruins are equivalent. He meant, not doubt, identical in their effectiveness. "

Without addressing what I thought it meant, there is no way anyone could say that OP was clear with what he meant.

And I'd have to disagree, frankly, the OP most certainly DID make the comparison you claim no one in their right mind would make, right here

"If you replace the threat of physical violence with a threat of legal and financial ruin, they are virtually identical."

So, either OP is being intentionally inflammatory and hyperbolic, or OP is being intentionally inflammatory and hyperbolic in a different but just as inaccurate way.

Either way OP is full of shit.

Re:This is why Slashdot is ridiculed

[SIIHP]

"There are fates worse than death"

Like reading your well crafted, highly intelligent posts.

Re:This is why Slashdot is ridiculed

[mikael]

Try some Diesel Therapy, as experience by George Hansen.

Re:This is why Slashdot is ridiculed

[SIIHP]

I understand, the truth hurts.

Re:This is why Slashdot is ridiculed

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait everyone! DIP-SIIHP has spoken - we must all bow down and agree DIP-SIIHP is right. You're right DIP-SIIHP! Now can we continue with the conversation?

Re:This is why Slashdot is ridiculed

[SIIHP]

"Now can we continue with the conversation?"

Oh, is that what you call hiding as an AC and calling names?

Oh sorry, I didn't realize that IS what you call conversation AC.

And "DIP-SIIHP"? Come on, if you're going to troll me, at least try something that a 4 year old couldn't come up with.

Is being proven wrong by me really so emasculating for you that you have to hide and take potshots? How empty is your life that you get so bent out of shape just by having me prove you're wrong?

Re:This is why Slashdot is ridiculed

[Smidge204]

Speaking of logical fallacies, are you capable of writing anything other than ad-hominem attacks? I've yet to see it.

Racketeering is the running of an illegal business, in whole or in part. It is illegal to coerce people, whether by death threats or financial/legal threats. It is illegal to coerce other companies, either by physical threat or financial/legal threat. Just because it's not literally life or death doesn't mean it causes any less anxiety and suffering, therefore it is still coercion.

And yes, it is possible for a lawsuit to be, in itself, illegal. Therefore improper use of legal threats can be another form of racketeering. The RIAA is a perfect example and I'm amazed RICO complaints haven't been used more often and with better success.

There are several facets to Microsoft's business practices that are "questionably legal" - and you don't have to be a rabid MS hater to see that. The RICO act allows for these practices to be brought before a court for a closer look. It may not be getting applied to the types of "business" it was originally intended for, but it is certainly being used for the same general purpose.

You have a company that has great power and influence which maintains that power through bullying and corruption rather than by merit of its products and services. Guess what? That's exactly what the mob does!

Now if all you have to say is more insults, just save us all the time and go back under your bridge.
=Smidge=

Re:This is why Slashdot is ridiculed

[BarryBham]

RACKETEERING ACTIVITY - (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnaping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs, which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year

Most of that is traditional old gangster stuff, true. However, extortion comes in various flavors, including use of judicial process to harass or harm someone in order to coerce someone to an action they would not otherwise perform. So it seems quite appropriate to use RICO with corporate criminal activity when that activity has as its purpose some wrongful gain.

Re:This is why Slashdot is ridiculed

[gr8scot]

Slashdot is ridiculed -- by whom? More giants of the intellect like you, I suppose. Please remind me to pretend to care.

"If you replace the threat of physical violence with a threat of legal and financial ruin, they are virtually identical."

I'm sorry, but whoever modded you up is a bigger twit than you are, which is saying a lot.

Please tell me the threat of legal and financial ruin that can be used which is equivalent to having your family executed in front of you.

You're the first here to use the word "equivalent" to describe actual physical force vs. financial and/or legal measures. [straw man] He correctly pointed out that they're both forms of coercion. He did not say they're equivalent. In fact, I was impressed by his careful inclusion of the qualifier "virtually". Perhaps you are not the first demagogue he's ever spoken to. Whether he anticipated your fallacious argument or merely made his better out of a habit of precision and accuracy, he has stated his position more consistently and honestly than you have stated yours.

It fascinates me how the hypocrites here rail against the Patriot Act and other laws being mis-applied, but because of your irrational hatred of MS, you ignore exactly the same kinds of abuses with RICO.

Bill Gates has not been tortured, or even forcibly moved under RICO. You just committed the same error, equation of legal action (RICO) to physical force (Patriot Act) that you erroneously accused your opponent of committing. Your liberal use of the word "rail" makes the absence from your statement of pertinent fact more, not less, obvious.

You're pathetic...

Re:This is why Slashdot is ridiculed

[sjames]

Please tell me the threat of legal and financial ruin that can be used which is equivalent to having your family executed in front of you.

In the extreme form, you're obviously correct. However, in it's less extreme form, there are MANY people who would rather have their little toe smashed by a hammer than spend years in court with costs in the tens of thousands of dollars. Killing the family as the first notice lacks finesse!

Civil vs. Federal is nonsense

[DragonWriter]

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act was designed to fight organized crime, but in recent years more than 100 times as many civil as federal RICO cases have been filed.

This makes no sense. Civil RICO cases filed are federal cases. Is this supposed to mean:
1) That there are 100x as many civil as criminal RICO cases filed, or
2) That there are 100x as many RICO cases filed by private plaintiffs as there are filed by the U.S. Department of Justice.

And does it matter, in either case? RICO laws were designed to fight organized crime by providing civil and criminal remedies, the former available through both public and private rights of action. Civil remedies and a private right of action were created both to provide a means of compensating victims and because organized criminals often sought to avoid criminal prosecution by corrupt influence on government officials and witness intimidation, etc., that made meeting the high criminal standard of proof difficult. So a predominance of civil and/or privately-filed RICO cases is not evidence that the system isn't working as designed.

HAHA

[Thirdlight]

You all are so funny...I love how u complain about everything and anything...you claim your so smart and all this stuff and claim all these people rip u off. Well guess what...as a previous ./er said READ THE FING TERMS & CONDITIONS!! Dont give bs about something...yes I'll sell you your own ass if I was told to...Hell look at used car sales men. Thats the reason the terms are there...if your to dumb to understand that...hey, more money for me and my buds :) Companies learned a while ago to cover their asses because of stuff like this.

As to installing software u already own? Seriously...have you looked at half the population that buys computers now a days???? I'd b surprised if they even knew how to make their trial versions into full even with the tut's!

And yes I do work at BB right now...2nd job and discount ftw! lol Yes it suxs selling the stuff, but hey, thats corporate America for u...get use to it, their your new overlords.

You all sound just like the idiots that I have to deal with that dont understand about the home install deal....Yes i charged you $100 for something...but guess what u dumb retard, thats the only reason YOU got $200 OFF that TV! So yeah go ahead and return it...I'll just charge your ass $100 more right now then ;)

Re:MOD PARENT TROLL

[huckamania]

Sad and pathetic... but it worked. Is slashdot going the way of digg?

How the conversation goes.

[argent]

Seller: And do you want a free 6 months of the MSN online service?
Buyer: Uhhh... what's that?
S: They offer news, games, and [insert other things they offer, albeit other places offer similar things for cheaper, that's not what they advertise]. *You can always cancel it before then and you don't get charged anything.*
B: Umm... ok...

Seller: buncha other questions...
Buyer: buncha "OK..."
Seller: And do you want to activate the free 6 month MSN CD included in the box?
Buyer: OK...

You say they're going to fire dishonest workers. Is that guy being dishonest?

What do they actually require they disclose?

Do you read all the paperwork when you're standing in line at the register?

What do the people behind you think about that?

or realize things at a store aren't free, durr

Some things are included in the purchase price, and are described as "free". Some things are promotional, and really free. Some things are subscriptions with a free initial period, and are described as "free". In virtually every case where I've run into the third category you actually need to use the service before you're really signed up... even the infamous AOL CDs.

If someone hasn't run into the third category yet, then it's not at all reasonable for them to miss this. Especially when there are plenty of cases where online content really IS in the first two categories... even when you get it from a store like the music card I got from Starbucks the other day (yes, I checked, there's no strings attached). There's even free online services that sound just like the service they're apparently offering.

Idiots

[MahariBalzitch]

From the article:
"Best Buy allegedly signed Odom up an MSN account with the credit card Odom used to pay for the computer. After a six-month free trial ended, Microsoft began charging him for the account, the suit charged."

So the guy buys a laptop and is offered 6 months free MSN service in which he has to use his credit card so they have a credit card on file. Why is this any different from NetFlix getting your card info in order to use their free trial?

These people are all pissed because they were too stupid to cancel their service at the end of the 6 month free period and their credit cards were billed.

If you are going to hand over your credit card for 6 months of free Internet services, Aren't you going to read the terms and conditions!?!?

Bill Gates Part 2

[wdr]

Looks like the long arm of the law has finally caught up with his ways and the ways of his company. An excellent example of how a company can reflect it's creators image. Kinda of reminds you of how the FBI took out Al Capone. Will...

better things to do than read fine print ALL DAY

[gr8scot]

So the guy buys a laptop and is offered 6 months free MSN service in which he has to use his credit card so they have a credit card on file. Why is this any different from NetFlix getting your card info in order to use their free trial?

For one thing, because they haven't tried to bundle NetFlix subscription with an outright purchase. For another, if you sign up with NetFlix yourself, there may be a reasonable expectation that you will read the fine print.

"Best Buy allegedly signed Odom up an MSN account with the credit card Odom used to pay for the computer. After a six-month free trial ended, Microsoft began charging him for the account, the suit charged."

Allegedly, he did not sign up for that account. The implication is that he was subscribed by proxy, without his consent, or knowledge. If true, his complaint is completely legitimate.

You may not care that your civil liberties are in atrophy, but I intend to continue exercising mine.

disorganized law-abiding citizens

[gr8scot]

Well, it's not a bad thing that the Evil Industries learned that too-broad laws can be used against them as much as against us. DMCA, anyone ?

So what, "that will teach them a lesson"? I'm afraid, vegiVamp, that "the Evil Industries" have never "learned" anything, and never will, because their diffuse ownership structure allows diffuse accountability. Ultimately, they will just have half as many Billions, and taxpayers foot 50% or more of most of their (publicly known) transgressions. I enjoy the sentiment of punishing the bad guys, but that's better accomplished with fewer, simpler laws, strictly enforced, than the byzantine body of regulation currently in operation. Even a full-time lawyer cannot navigate the laws that govern a single corporation. It takes a full-time Legal Department to keep publicly traded, collectively owned businesses, aka "corporations", clear of prosecution under the laws they purchased to prevent competitors from entering the markets.

Re:disorganized law-abiding citizens

[vegiVamp]

> So what, "that will teach them a lesson"?

No, nothing quite so dramatic. I just hope that they'll start seeing that broadly-worded laws can be a danger to themselves as well, and go back to more accurately-worded ones. The hope that they'll just leave the lawmaking to those elected to do so is vain :-)

They do learn, though, in the same diffuse way a beehive learns that a once-bountiful field of flowers no longer contains food. Just look at how they learned that accurate, narrow-applied laws were too easily circumvented by technicalities, so they started pushing broadly-worded laws, that their lawyer drones could easily use for a variety of lawsuits.

When they do go back to narrow and sharp laws, though, they'll at some point realise that those can be avoided with technicalities, and once more push for broad laws, which by then they'll have forgotten are useless as well. It's another one of those annoying circle of corporate life things.