Slashdot Mirror


Joyent Drops Lifetime Account Holders

New submitter samnorsk writes "I've long been a lifetime account holder of an old textdrive (now Joyent) cloud hosting account. I remember purchasing the account back in college for a few hundred bucks when I really didn't have the money to spend. At the time, I thought that the opportunity to have a persistent lifetime shell / web hosting account would be valuable. This would be a resource I could fall back on no matter what my current situation was. Now, I just received an email stating that Joyent intends to shut down my lifetime account. Quoting: 'We appreciate and value you as one of Joyent's lifetime Shared Hosting customers. As this service is one of our earliest offerings, and has now run its course, your lifetime service will end on October 31, 2012.' They do offer a 512MB cloud machine for one year, but presumably if we don't take that, we're done. In any case, our lifetime commitment would still be dropped in one year if we take that offer. How is it fair or legal for a 'lifetime account' to end when it is no longer convenient for the company? For reference, this was the original offer. In it, they state: 'How long is it good for? As long as we exist.'"

443 comments

  1. Just be happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    that they don't kill you.

    1. Re:Just be happy by sunking2 · · Score: 2

      I think that comes with the 'still be dropped in one year' part.

    2. Re:Just be happy by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      Whelp, there's the next plot for my shadowrun group.

    3. Re:Just be happy by ISoldat53 · · Score: 2

      They didn't say whose lifetime.

    4. Re:Just be happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they state: 'How long is it good for? As long as we exist.'"

      This makes me think you misread the agreement. Lifetime never referred to the life of the customer, but the life of the product.

  2. Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Smells like a class action suit to me...

    1. Re:Recourse by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      Smells like a class action suit to me...

      Sounds like the old clause: "Subject to change without notice" at work.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Recourse by hobarrera · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In many cases, judges have ruled that the changes cannot be so unbalanced towards one side. "No longer providing a service you have already paid for without any compensation" sounds like a case that would most likely result in this.

    3. Re:Recourse by RandomUsername99 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It doesn't say anything of the sort under their Terms of Service at the time, available through the wayback link.

    4. Re:Recourse by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Link is here

      Agreed, nothing in the TOS talks about cancellation, and given the boilerplate nature of such things, me thinks they can cancel it if they want. Besides, how much money are you going to spend to fight them in court? Me thinks, not much.

      And more importantly, how many other people are in your situation? Me thinks not many.

      'Not Much' + 'Not Many' = you get to find another solution. And of course rightfully bitch about them publicly :)

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    5. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds like the old clause: "Subject to change without notice" at work.

      Wait'll Steam shuts down. Whether it's in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, if it's hosted in the cloud, it'll eventually go away. If it's hosted on your own drive, and copied to your backup drive that's in a geographically-remote location, it's yours forever.

    6. Re:Recourse by icebike · · Score: 0

      It doesn't say anything of the sort under their Terms of Service at the time, available through the wayback link.

      It says"

      How long is it good for?
      As long as we exist.

      The original company no longer exists, and only half of the principals there of, are participants in the new owners.

      Still, one wonders why he can't move all of that into a virtual machine and put the storage in his cloud. That is after all their current line of business is it not?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:Recourse by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not a lawyer, but he may have a case. Joyent may in fact already know this and calculated it cheaper to settle on offering a lifetime account again --on a per user basis--. The idea betting on all other account holders shrugging it off. In the end, Joyent saves money.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    8. Re:Recourse by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd file in small claims court for the original amount paid. If they don't send a representative you win a default judgement and send them a letter including the court document link. If they don't pay you turn them over to a collection agency (trust me NO company wants a collection agency showing up in a credit report).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    9. Re:Recourse by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      You can file a suit in small claims court for $10-$100 (depending on the state/county you live in). And I'd guess many of their customers are aspie types that would file a small claims suit against them.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    10. Re:Recourse by jimbolauski · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't say anything of the sort under their Terms of Service at the time, available through the wayback link.

      It says"

      How long is it good for? As long as we exist.

      The original company no longer exists, and only half of the principals there of, are participants in the new owners.

      Still, one wonders why he can't move all of that into a virtual machine and put the storage in his cloud. That is after all their current line of business is it not?

      Unless a bankruptcy ruling released them from those lifetime commitments there is no way out, when you purchase a company you don't just purchase its assets you get everything including any commitments they made and any liabilities they have.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    11. Re:Recourse by rtfa-troll · · Score: 3, Informative

      \ Joyent may in fact already know this and calculated it cheaper to settle on offering a lifetime account again --on a per user basis--.

      Given that all the responses on their forum say something to the effect of "contact support and we'll work it out" I think you may have a point.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    12. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      IANAL: The original company may not exists, but at a lot of contract law has to do with how entities behave. If the new incarnation continued to honor the original terms for some length of time, then they may have actually become bound by the contract. It also depends greatly on how the old company became the new company. At the very least I would try to find a lawyer who is willing to give the situation a look.

    13. Re:Recourse by swell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Forget class action- after attorney fees you will have little or nothing.

      Small claims court is what you want. There are some huge advantages: 1- low cost to file. 2- attorneys are not allowed- only plaintiff and defendant. 3- if defendant does not appear, he will usually lose automatically. What's the chance that the CEO will come to your town to contest a $500 claim?

      Sometimes there is difficulty collecting your judgement if, for instance, an individual skips town. This defendant is easy to find and easy to force payment from.

      Usually you can only make them pay for actual costs. No 'pain and suffering' claims, etc. IANAL, check the rules where you live.

      Have fun. If hundreds do the same you might actually be a nuisance to them.

      --
      ...omphaloskepsis often...
    14. Re:Recourse by Skapare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If enough individuals file separate small claims suits, then THEY will be the ones wanting to consolidate into a class action.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    15. Re:Recourse by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      If it's hosted on your own drive, and copied to your backup drive that's in a geographically-remote location, it's yours until Microsoft works out how to get proper trusted computing implemented on all new PC hardware and your last hard drive from your old computers packs in.

      There FTFY.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    16. Re:Recourse by RandomUsername99 · · Score: 1

      If they're selling you something as a lifetime subscription, that's a very specific thing that you're paying for. They have to disclose if that claim has caveats (for example, they can cancel it), not the other way around.

      I can't sell you lifetime (as long as I'm in business) personal chef service for $5,000 and then, the next day, say that I'm sunsetting the service because it had 'run its course'. Same thing here. A class action is the way to go. You should be able to get a firm to take it on.

    17. Re:Recourse by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      Steam is cracked, if steam shuts down, I have methods of continuing to run most/all of my steam games if I put in a little effort.

    18. Re:Recourse by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 0
      FYI Computer != PC, and you dont need a new machine anyway. Get a second hand Sparc machine or something.

      I guarantee that, outside of the USA, there will be plenty of computers that can run whatever you want. Perhaps you should relocate to a land that is slightly more free?

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    19. Re:Recourse by mwvdlee · · Score: 3

      You can file a suit in small claims court for $10-$100 (depending on the state/county you live in). And I'd guess many of their customers are aspie types that would file a small claims suit against them.

      Why would you have to be an asperger in order to sue over a $500 lifetime account that is cancelled 6 years later?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    20. Re:Recourse by crashumbc · · Score: 0

      According to the wiki for Joynet --"... In 2005, the company bought TextDrive, gaining an ASP platform." If he bought his lifetime contract from "TextDrive" he's S.O.L. The company ceased to exist in 2005 so they fulfilled the contract at that point.

    21. Re:Recourse by Desler · · Score: 0

      Wrong. People buy just the assets of companies and leave behind the debt and liabilities all the time to the original owners.

    22. Re:Recourse by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      This defendant is easy to find and easy to force payment from.

      Not that small claims court is necessarily a bad thing, but unless they have some business presence in your state you're not really going to be able to do much about it except win a default judgement that you'll have quite a time collecting, no?

    23. Re:Recourse by DragonWriter · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Unless a bankruptcy ruling released them from those lifetime commitments there is no way out, when you purchase a company you don't just purchase its assets you get everything including any commitments they made and any liabilities they have.

      Sure, but the commitment that they had was, by its express terms, not for the users lifetime, but for the original company's lifetime.

      So the question isn't jsut whether the obligation was acquired, but what the scope of the obligation was to start with.

    24. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't most places atleast 1000 dollars

      I have never heard of a place with limited to 100

    25. Re:Recourse by icebike · · Score: 1

      Unless a bankruptcy ruling released them from those lifetime commitments there is no way out, when you purchase a company you don't just purchase its assets you get everything including any commitments they made and any liabilities they have.

      Unless you know for certain that it was purchased, you can't make blanket assertions.
      Two guys form a company with a "as long as we exist" clause.
      One departs. Did he sell his share or just walk away? Was it a corporation, or an informal partnership?
      If a partnership, and the remaining partner chooses to pick up the pieces of the defunct business, its no longer a case of "WE existing. The original partnership is dead. The "WE" ceases to exist.

      May be different if it were a corporation. But without wading through records (some of which may not be public) you can't be sure.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    26. Re:Recourse by Desler · · Score: 2

      And in case you don't believe me read here. You only assume debt as a buyer if you agree to do so, it's a de facto merger, if the seller company is really just a continuation of the original company in that most of the people running it are the same or if you don't notify the sellers creditors in a reasonable time period before acquiring the assets.

    27. Re:Recourse by Desler · · Score: 1

      To clarify that is for both the debts and liabilities.

    28. Re:Recourse by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wrong. People buy just the assets of companies and leave behind the debt and liabilities all the time to the original owners.

      No, they don't. Barring a bankrupcy, you simply cannot just buy the assets w/o inheriting the liabilities. I'm sure a lot of people and companies would like thta to be true, but under the lawy, itt doesn't work like that at all.

    29. Re:Recourse by uncqual · · Score: 1

      I think larry bagina meant the cost of filing (and perhaps service et al) would be $10 to $100 - not that that was the max claim amount.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    30. Re:Recourse by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I submit this as evidence, your honor:

      "Copyright 2004â"2006 TextDrive Inc. TextDrive is a trademark of Joyent Inc."

      TD and J are one and the same.

      I rest my case.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    31. Re:Recourse by uncqual · · Score: 2

      Small claims is probably better for the individual assuming the jurisdiction rules in their state/the state the contract was made in make it possible to file where the individual is currently living. Odds are that Joyent won't even show up so the individual wins by default. Might be best to delay pushing for actual enforcement (i.e. payment) of the court order though until any opportunity for Joyent to appeal has expired (the possibility of this as well as the timeframe would vary across states) as there's no need to focus their attention to the fact they just lost.

      Class action will make the lawyers rich and maybe get the individual a 10% discount off one year's service at "rack rate".

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    32. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't say aspie either, more like "miser" or "tightwad". Most people would probably figure they got more than $500 worth and move on with life.

      Don't know why anyone would even want "lifetime" hosting, as they're just going to leave on some crappy old hardware & depriortize your customer service unless they can get more revenue out of you.

    33. Re:Recourse by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      Joynet purchased textdrive, kept their customers and offered the same services, textdrive still exists through joynet. They set a precedent by accepting those customers they would have a hard time explaining why they choose to honor the contract for so long and then decided not to especially since they had the same offer as joynet that they are welching on.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    34. Re:Recourse by nomadic · · Score: 2

      You absolutely can buy the assets of a company without inheriting the liabilities. The holder of the liabilities has certain responsibilities; they can't just give the money they just got to the principals then dissolve the company and avoid its debts. But as long as the purchaser paid a fair price for the assets it's a legal transaction.

    35. Re:Recourse by Grimbleton · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do you get paid every time you say "me thinks"?

    36. Re:Recourse by omnichad · · Score: 1

      For that matter, you can't sell a 10-year subscription and expire it after 5. Clearly they're not getting lifetime subscriptions, but they're only getting 6 years and it's not even a competitive deal. Of course, Tivo's "Lifetime" subscriptions last the lifetime of the device itself, while TomTom's "lifetime" map updates are only for as long as they decide that the device is serviceable, which is written widely enough to mean whenever they decide that product is EOL.

    37. Re:Recourse by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>small claims court for $10-$100

      It's more than that. I've met people online who sued Toyota for $5000 because they refused to replace their 20,000-mile dead engine. The person wanted the repair cost refunded so they filed in small claims against the dealer.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    38. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /Simple/math/
      ## Write_Off_The_Dead_Beats

      ($Cheap_Fee X count($Diminished_User_Group)) X 2 = $Total_One-Time_Payout_Costs; ## ($TOTPC)
      $TOTPC / $Monthly_Maintenance_Fee(servers) = $Return_On_Investment_Interval; ## ($ROII)
      if(($ROII) $Financial_Reporting_Interval(1)), mail(stop_servce_letter.txt); ## Count your money

    39. Re:Recourse by Beorytis · · Score: 1

      Smells like a class action suit to me...

      At least if you believe the anonymous editor who just added "There is currently a class-action lawsuit pending." to the Wikipedia entry on Joyent!

    40. Re:Recourse by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Except you are conflating a common every day occurrence with some paranoid fantasy.

      We don't have to fantasize about our particular what if, it's what the article is about. Any of us here could point to similarly orphaned software.

      I knew someone that was subscribed to a cloud backup service that suddenly went dark recently with no notice given to the end users.

      Meanwhile, my own local media keeps on chugging along outliving entire generations of "cloud" and DRM services.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    41. Re:Recourse by xeno314 · · Score: 1

      Hence bankruptcy.

    42. Re:Recourse by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      -When the sale is fraudulent, which often arises when the seller is left with insufficient funds or other assets to pay its debts, and so the seller's creditors can't be paid off

      Did they Lifetime subscribers get refunded?

      When the buyer does not comply with the state's "bulk sales law," which requires the buyer to notify the seller's creditors within a specified period before it takes possession of the assets or pays for them

      When did Joynet notify the lifetime subscribers before the purchase?

      The bottom line is that they inherited the commitments neither of these clauses were met.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    43. Re:Recourse by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      1. Joyent isn't textdrive, i.e. textdrive doesn't exist anymore, so the lifetime obligation has been exhausted.

      2. Whose lifetime? The service's, i.e. no shorter than its lifetime.

      Nothing to see/hear. Move along. (!)

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    44. Re:Recourse by fredprado · · Score: 1

      He means the cost to file the action.

    45. Re:Recourse by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

      Doesn't matter. These folks made sure they had a "get out of jail free" card. Starting and certainly not ending with a waiving of right to sue in favor of arbitration, and an attempt to get out of any legal encumberments pursuant to the "Interstate Commerce Clause".

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    46. Re:Recourse by crashumbc · · Score: 0

      Huh? I don't understand how that proves that anything.

      If TD was BOUGHT by Joynet in 2005 they would have acquired all of TD's Trademarks, company name etc... That has no bearing on TD no longer existing as a company. TD would be a brand name Joynet used to sell products at that point.

      Disclaimer: My first post and this post are on valid IF the wiki is correct and Joynet purchased TD in 2005...

    47. Re:Recourse by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Any company that went through bankruptcy is gone and cannot be bought. Yes, their assets can be sold, but that was not the case here. The company was bought.

    48. Re:Recourse by fredprado · · Score: 4, Informative

      As the GP said, only if the company is bankrupt, and then you won't be buying the company, just the assets. In this case the company was bought, so there was no bankruptcy and the liabilities went to the new owner.

    49. Re:Recourse by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Too bad their TOS has you waive your right to sue.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    50. Re:Recourse by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh, and I almost forgot the most obvious and on point...

      TextDrive, Inc shall not be liable for delays or defaults. TextDrive, Inc shall not be liable for delays or defaults in furnishing goods or services hereunder, if such delays or defaults on the part of TextDrive, Inc are due to: Acts of God or of a public enemy; Acts of the United States or any state or political subdivision thereof; Fires, severe weather, floods, earthquakes, natural disasters, explosions or other catastrophes; Embargoes, epidemics or quarantine restrictions; Shortage of goods, labor strikes, slowdowns, differences with workmen or labor stoppages of any kind; Delays of supplier or delay of transportation for any reason; Causes beyond the control of TextDrive, Inc. in furnishing items or services including, but not limited to, breakdown or failure of machinery or equipment, or delay in Client reporting problems or furnishing information or materials. Acceptance of delivery of goods or services shall constitute a waiver and release of TextDrive, Inc by Client for any claim for damages, setoff, discount or other liability on account of delay.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    51. Re:Recourse by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      Unless you know for certain that it was purchased, you can't make blanket assertions. Two guys form a company with a "as long as we exist" clause.

      We will call that Company A

      One departs. Did he sell his share or just walk away? Was it a corporation, or an informal partnership? If a partnership, and the remaining partner chooses to pick up the pieces of the defunct business, its no longer a case of "WE existing. The original partnership is dead.

      It's still Company A the remaining person A simply acquired person B's shares liability does not disolve when that happens

      The "WE" ceases to exist.

      May be different if it were a corporation. But without wading through records (some of which may not be public) you can't be sure.

      It doesn't matter what textdrive's ownership was just that it was purchased by joynet the liability started with textdrive and moved to joynet when it was purchased. If two people start a company and one leaves the company's liability is not washed away.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    52. Re:Recourse by slagheap · · Score: 1

      In a class action, doesn't the lead plaintiff usually get a real payout if successful? It's just all the other rabble in the class that get coupons. And yes of course... the lawyers always win.

      --
      First against the wall when the revolution comes
    53. Re:Recourse by NalosLayor · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work like this. When you change your name, you don't abandon all obligations. If that was the case, all GM would have had to do to get out of their financial problems was change the name on the corporate offices to "Specific Motors" and then say "Oh, well, GM is still a brand owned by us". Come on.

    54. Re:Recourse by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      Except you are conflating a common every day occurrence with some paranoid fantasy.

      You are logged in so you do see my sig. If you have them turned off then I recommend you turn them on. However; yes; you are right. There's still plenty of chance to fight off Microsoft whilst this is now. Also I personaly believe that there is a sufficient demand building up for free hardware that there will be companies that want to provide this and that with determined support from many people Microsoft's legal strategies to block them will fail. However, for that to work we need people to actually show some spine. If nobody's capable of taking on a small hosting company then when it comes to taking on Microsoft the odds are pretty low.

      Please note that Microsoft is moving over to an app store model. The hardware platforms for Windows RT already do enforce restrictions on the user's ability to do what they want. DRM already is integrated into Windows. This is not, as it was five years ago, just some future paranoid fantasy. Please get with the times.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    55. Re:Recourse by Terry95 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Very likely not true. When one company buys another they take on all liabilities (like long term contracts and loans) as well as all assets (like cash and computers). I don't know, or particularly care, if Joyent is a different corporation or if textdrive just changed their name. But conceptually it doesn't actually matter. In practice of course you ALL the rights you can afford to prosecute in court. And NO others.

    56. Re:Recourse by VGPowerlord · · Score: 5, Informative

      1. Joyent isn't textdrive, i.e. textdrive doesn't exist anymore, so the lifetime obligation has been exhausted.

      Given that the summary linked to the original offer...

      We're pleased to announce a special offer that combines three great products in our family -- TextDrive, Strongspace and Joyent -- available for a one-time payment of just $499.

      Want to try that again?

      2. Whose lifetime? The service's, i.e. no shorter than its lifetime.

      What they said was

      As long as we exist.

      The thing is, even though TextDrive, Inc. no longer exists, "three products in our family" and including two products other than TextDrive makes the offer explicitly from the parent company Joyent, Inc. The same company which still hosts the article author's site.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    57. Re:Recourse by icebike · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter what textdrive's ownership was just that it was purchased by joynet the liability started with textdrive and moved to joynet when it was purchased. If two people start a company and one leaves the company's liability is not washed away.

      As I stated before, you can't make Blanket statements like that. Its just not that simple, no matter how much you may thump your chest and speak with false authority.

      Was Company A dissolved?
      Were the assets sold off (perhaps to the only knowledgeable party that wanted them)?

      Companies (especially partnerships and C Corps) shut down all the time, sell assets.
      You buy some of these assets, say Joe's Plumber Company service vehicles, because they are a perfect fit for your business, Sams Pipes. Does that mean you are obligated to honor Joe's warranty? Of course not.

      You are making assumptions that you have not a shred of data to support. You haven't followed the paper trail.
      You haven't looked at any of the documents. You don't know FACT ONE about how this all transpired.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    58. Re:Recourse by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      You are so right! I mean as long as I keep these MFM hard drives safe I will always have the data that is stored on them...Retrieving the data however might be a problem.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    59. Re:Recourse by Infernal+Device · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Aside from just totally going out of business, Joyent has a commitment to honor. If we don't start holding companies to their word, they will walk all over us worse than they already do.

      It may sound anti-business, but it's more "don't write checks your wallet can't cash". AT&T, Verizon and Sprint have all pulled that bullshit, as well as countless other companies and then weaseled out of it in the name of marketing, once they got their customers. Consumers may not be able to hold their feet to the fire, but we can damn well make sure we minimize the number of companies that try to pull marketing scams like that to get customers.

      Besides, $500 is $500 and thats no small amount of money in these economic times.

      --
      "My God...it's full of trolls!"
    60. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. Joylent sounds like the successor-in-interest of TextDrive, no matter whether they acquired the company, merged with it, etc. Unless TextDrive went through an actual legal dissolution and reformation and gave you notice of that fact and gave you the opportunity to respond at that time, the person here definitely has a claim.

      A reasonable request would be for a settlement from Joylent for the value of an account for his remaining actuarial life time. They can dicker over what it costs. "Statistically, I should live another 58 years, of which I expect to be working 30 more. So give me (yearly cost)*(30 years) at a minimum."

      Joylent, on the other hand, will probably respond with "Here is a refund of your $500, less the percentage of your actuarial lifetime account you used up." E.g., $400 or so.

    61. Re:Recourse by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Nope, not how it works. Illogical maybe, but under most states' laws if you buy some or all of a company's assets you do not generally assume the liabilities of the company. This has been tested in courts time and time again.

    62. Re:Recourse by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not true at all. You can buy a company's assets and none of their liabilities. It's called a "bulk sale of assets". How this is done varies by state, but it's done all the time. Is it fair? That's another story and a problem for liability holders. It's also one of the problems with corporate law and how it's unevenly applied across jurisdictions.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    63. Re:Recourse by jimbolauski · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You haven't looked at any of the documents. You don't know FACT ONE about how this all transpired.

      Did Joynet purchase textdrive?
      The answer is YES

      Did the lifetime customers receive service from Joynet after the purchase?
      Again the answer is Yes for the last 7 years they have

      Now we have established that Joynet purchased Textdrive, and that the customers were acquired by Joynet so please explain to me how it would be possible for joynet to claim that Textdrive sold the Lifetime customers when provided services? Or that Textdrive did not become a part of Joynet even though they were purchased by Joynet and the services remained.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    64. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you can't be bothered to read the comments that have refuted your claim, here is another. When textdrive was bought, its assets as well as liabilities were transferred. The only way to avoid this would be if textdrive had filed bankruptcy.

      Good thing you put forth the effort to read the wiki...

    65. Re:Recourse by fredprado · · Score: 1

      If you only buy the assets yes. It is like buying a building from another company. You don't assume their employee medical bills by doing so and it is perfectly logical. But when you buy the company, which they did in this case, you do.

    66. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between liabilities and duties. You can't buy/sell just the good parts of a contract (or just the bad). (There are some narrow exceptions involving bankruptcy court, but that doesn't seem to apply here.)

    67. Re:Recourse by lorenlal · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also, I just went cross-eyed in the ToS. I saw no provision that said they could terminate or otherwise suspend this service or promise. They are allowed to if someone violates the ToS, but I don't see anything about updating or changing the ToS being allowed.

      IANAL and YMMV, but I think there could be a standing for a class-action action here.

    68. Re:Recourse by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Unless there was a bankruptcy, someone owns those liabilities.

    69. Re:Recourse by postbigbang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We know nothing of the terms of the sale until we see the terms of the sale. Bulk sales are like bankruptcies. The laws vary. IANAL, but I've seen bulk assets shed contract liabilities to an empty corporate shell, where a suit against that shell is meaningless.

      Duty? We're talking corporations here. That's how liabilities are shed. I don't like the idea either. I'm a 99%er, but I understand the 1% very thoroughly.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    70. Re:Recourse by lorenlal · · Score: 1

      That's only on account of them being unable to provide the services because of something beyond their control... specifically "on account of delay." This looks like a waiver for "things beyond our control" not "we're not making money off you anymore."

    71. Re:Recourse by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's a 'Lifetime' policy ;-)

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    72. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is entirely untrue. You can certainly buy a company's assets and not its liabilities, although the taxes on the sale will be much higher. You also have to deal with the fact that any nontransferable contracts no longer apply to you, for better or for worse. Unless this company actually got all current customers to sign new contracts at the time of sale, they are probably in hot water anyway, but that doesn't mean there is no legal way to do what is being described, at least in a general sense.

    73. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to have some difficulty understanding the concept of existing. Let me give you an example.

      I have a car. It exists. I bought it from some guy. it existed back then too. If I sell my car, it will still exist.

      Now, let's bring this into the world of business...

      If you buy a company, you buy the company. Just like if you bought a car. You don't just take it's name/assets, you take it's liabilities, it's customer base, and all that. In fact since a customer contract is a liability rather than an asset the fact that this guy has been a customer all the way up until now proves that textdrive still exists, it's just been absorbed into the new owner. The company still exists, the liabilities still exist.

      The only exception to this is when companies buy the assets only of another company. In this case all customers are dropped and so on, because this can only be done if the other company declares bankruptcy. If they do not, someone will always be liable for their debts. That someone... is the new owner.

    74. Re:Recourse by PRMan · · Score: 1

      AT&T, Verizon and Sprint

      Umm, I STILL have ACTUAL unlimited everything on Sprint, as far as I can tell...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    75. Re:Recourse by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Smells like a class action suit to me...

      Sounds like the old clause: "Subject to change without notice" at work.

      If only they had provided such a clause in their customer service agreement at the time the contract was written. Usually consumers get screwed over due to contracts written in such a way (aka "buyer beware"), but the same can be said when a company blindly makes promises to customers that they can't deliver.

      You can't retroactively add such a clause to an existing contract without consent by all parties involved.

    76. Re:Recourse by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Tivo's "Lifetime" subscriptions last the lifetime of the device itself

      Actually, on DirecTV, mine has lasted through about 4 DVRs per TV.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    77. Re:Recourse by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Well, that was purchased through DirecTV and not Tivo, of course. But since DirecTV is the one providing TV service, they ought to be providing lifetime listing and lineup updates anyway, since that's what they do for all of their receivers.

    78. Re:Recourse by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Depends on your state. In my state, and many others, either party can ask the judge to move the case to regular court and he will. Once in regular court, you will have your ass handed to you unless you hire an expensive lawyer.

      The justice system doesn't even bother pretending to be fair to the little guy anymore. The entire economic and political system on this planet is a complete and utter scam.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    79. Re:Recourse by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Most people would probably figure they got more than $500 worth and move on with life.

      Instead of calculating the discounted NPV of, say, $120/year + inflation for the rest of their lives, and claiming for that as the cost of this company seeking to negate its commitments?

      If I invest I'll earn around 3% p.a. but inflation tends to be around 4%. So $120p.a. for the rest of my life, assuming I live longer than my father is going to be somewhere around is somewhere over $13k. That sounds like a reasonable sum to claim as compensation.

    80. Re:Recourse by Infernal+Device · · Score: 1

      OK, so maybe not Sprint. I admit to not doing much research before posting that accusation against them.

      I still maintain that one error doesn't invalidate my point, though. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile or more.

      --
      "My God...it's full of trolls!"
    81. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless there was a bankruptcy, someone owns those liabilities.

      Original entity.

    82. Re:Recourse by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      In most class actions, the lead plaintiff is just a figurehead, often recruited by the lawyers who saw an opportunity for a class action and needed to find someone who was actually a customer/shareholder in order to be eligible to sue.

      The lawyers for the lead plaintiff may end up better off than the lawyers for other plaintiffs (since they got to be in the drivers seat for the negotiations) but AFAIK, the lead plaintiff themselves must submit to whatever is defined in the class action suit. If everybody gets coupons, the lead plaintiff gets coupons.

      --
      Bottles.
    83. Re:Recourse by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      I'd say it's more likely that you get some percentage of $500 back based on how much longer you have to live (on average, or maybe even max).

    84. Re:Recourse by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Informative

      I wouldn't say aspie either, more like "miser" or "tightwad". Most people would probably figure they got more than $500 worth and move on with life.

      $500 for 6 years of service comes out to about $6.94 per month. That isn't a particularly good deal. In fact, it's actually pretty darn expensive when you put a pencil to it. Much cheaper than their current hosting plans, mind you, but compared with the competition, it's highway robbery. For comparison, two bucks more per month from Dreamhost (in two-year blocks) or nearly a buck less from HostGator (in three-year blocks) gets you unlimited web storage (versus 2 GB), unlimited monthly bandwidth (versus 20 GB), unlimited databases (versus 20), and unlimited hosted domains (versus 15).

      No, this isn't $500 worth. It's maybe $150-200 worth at best.

      Don't know why anyone would even want "lifetime" hosting, as they're just going to leave on some crappy old hardware & depriortize your customer service unless they can get more revenue out of you.

      For the kind of money they paid for the service, that's a good way to get such negative reviews that you quickly find yourself without customers.

      Then again, so is dumping a large chunk of your customer base, so odds are, this company is desperate because they're struggling to pay the bills. I wouldn't trust them to host my lolcats site, much less anything that I cared about.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    85. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bottom line is that they inherited the commitments neither of these clauses were met.

      Only if they purchased the contracts and not just the asset(service). Just because they honored "lifetime" for 7 years doesn't mean they were required to by law.

    86. Re:Recourse by Mabhatter · · Score: 1

      Their basic yearly service was only about $100 a year. Some plans were cheaper. So at $500 you barely brake even versus just paying the yearly fee.

      I had them for a few years, but as they shifted to "cloud" services, they seemed to want "basic hosting" and the Joyent workgroup features to "go away". They want bigger fish now.

    87. Re:Recourse by Cederic · · Score: 1

      $500 six years ago is worth more than $500 now. Lifetime hosting is worth a fuck of a lot more than a subset of $500 now.

      Breaking a contract can indeed cost more than the initial price of a contract.

    88. Re:Recourse by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      2. Whose lifetime? The service's, i.e. no shorter than its lifetime.

      What they said was

      As long as we exist.

      The thing is, even though TextDrive, Inc. no longer exists, "three products in our family" and including two products other than TextDrive makes the offer explicitly from the parent company Joyent, Inc. The same company which still hosts the article author's site.

      I am not a lawyer, but I've seen/signed more than one contract in which there was language about "successors and assigns", etc., mainly to make sure that if the company I'm dealing with is acquired, I still have to pay money to the purchaser.

      The terms of service include an arbitration agreement. If I were this guy, I'd at least give heavy consideration to filing a case with the arbitration agency.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    89. Re:Recourse by happyhamster · · Score: 1

      me thinks he does.

    90. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can purchase a company's assets without also getting its liabilities. There are laws governing the specifics, such as tax obligations, creditor obligations, and potential legal liabilities. The typical process is for the Buyer to purchase the Seller's assets, and the Seller to continue to exist for 1-2 years as nothing but a paper company. Typically there is a hold-back to cover fees and potential issues for the paper company. If done correctly, the Buyer will not have any of the Seller's liabilities.

    91. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I upgraded to their Three Martini plan, textdrive was already a joyent company. I have the 6-year-old page printout as pdf to show it.

    92. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's sprint... It's by far the worst cell company in the US. They can do unlimited because their network is a piece of shit.

    93. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, because of course a TOS supersedes the law and not the other way around.

    94. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Companies that buy other companies end up with their obligations as well as their Profits.

      Just thought you should know.

    95. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask for the replacement value, not your money back. Should just about come to the limits of small claims court values if you shop around a bit...

    96. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a 99%er, but I understand the 1% very thoroughly.

      Yea, I know, right? Every single one of them pisses on the American flag before eating a fried kitten for breakfast, followed by a prayer of thanks to Satan.

    97. Re:Recourse by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      You're reading it with sensible and "moral" eyes. They can view circumstances beyond their control as "profitability" and "the whim of shareholders." Within the text of the escape hatch are words such as "but not limited to." It's also more than "delay" issues. The very first line speaks of delays or defaults.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    98. Re:Recourse by profplump · · Score: 2

      But we're not talking about physical assets, we're talking about service contracts. If you assumed Joe Plumber's service contracts -- as evidenced in part of the continuation of service under those contracts -- you would be obligated by the same terms of the original contract. Alternatively it would be possible for Joe Plumber to cancel his contracts under whatever terms where therein allowed before dissolving his business, or to enter bankruptcy/dissolution and allow the contracts to be settled as part of those proceedings. But it's not possible for Sam's Pipes to assume the contracts for a while, somehow protect those contracts from bankruptcy/dissolution actions against Joe Plumber during that time, and them simply decide to stop servicing the contracts at some point in the future -- the other parties to the contracts still have claims against whatever legal entity holds responsibility for the contracts.

    99. Re:Recourse by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      If you live in California, why do a class action lawsuit when you could just as easily sue them in Small Claims Court? Even if $499 (minus the small filing fee) for a half-days' work is not reward enough for you, at least do it for the fame and karma that Slashdot will bestow upon you for posting back your results on here.

    100. Re:Recourse by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Besides, how much money are you going to spend to fight them in court? Me thinks, not much.

      Joyent is preparing for an IPO.

      This $499 amount reminds of a guy who "claimed" he invested $500 very early on in Facebook. Whether you believe his claim, or not, he really ended up being a pain in the ass for Facebook and ended up costing them a lot of money.

      Now imagine a couple of hundreds (or dozens, I actually don't know the number) of account holders who "claim" they made the lifetime payment $499 as an investment in Joyent and as a very risky bet that the company was going to survive for a very long time (despite the clear evidence that most other internet startups were flaming out left and right). Those account holders could become very troublesome for Joyent. I don't expect many of them to sit still and do nothing when the VCs that invested at the same time are given a hundred-fold, or a thousand-fold, of what they invested initially.

      This really has nothing to do with hardware costs. Joyent could have easily continued supporting these users for the next 5 to 10 years. Right now, the early investors, VCs, and employees, are jockeying for position and clarifying potential equity problems and potential obligations that could later on easily blow up in their face during an IPO.

    101. Re:Recourse by afidel · · Score: 1

      Actually in the US the current law of the land is that binding arbitration clauses in contracts are are in fact binding. It's the second worst ruling of the Roberts court after Citizens United.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    102. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smells like a class action suit to me...

      Sounds like the old clause: "Subject to change without notice" at work.

      NOTE: I am not a lawyer.

      Actually it's called breach-of-contract. They took payment for a service with a specific duration (as long as we exist) as part of the deal and now they are reneging on it. You can't legally change one side of a contract once the deal has been made and consideration shown by both sides just because you feel like it, or it's "inconvenient" or "unprofitable".

    103. Re:Recourse by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

      In Illinois, a corporation can only be represented in small claims court by a lawyer. In general expect one if you're suing a corporation, small claims court or not.

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    104. Re:Recourse by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      If you can, opt OUT of the class action suit and bring suit locally. You will most likely need to contact an attorney for the best solution that will pay you both a good dividend.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    105. Re:Recourse by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Well, actually the current weasel trend is to create a new corp that takes on the assets. Then all the liabilities remain with the old corp, meaning no one can claim anything since they don't have any assets.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    106. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can buy a company's assets and none of their liabilities.

      Why sure you can, see Dow chemical and Union Carbide.... Bhopal victims still await for compensation after 28 years.

    107. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think 3DFx shareholders would like like to argue that with you. I assure you one can strip assets with out liabilities.

    108. Re:Recourse by pipatron · · Score: 1

      Nothing of that is relevant to this action. It lists a lot of very specific points, nothing "or anything else".

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    109. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of that applies as this was a bundle offered by the current company not a precursor company.. the bundle was for 3 products FROM Joyent inc. not from textdrive (which no longer exists or was bought by joyent later.

      In this case its literally, we want to make more money so lifetime is not lifetime anymore.

      Also if you try shedding liability to a shell you will get burned every time.. it never works except as "slow them down and cost them more money than it is worth defense".. IE if MS tried to cancel all of its SLA agreements by creating a shell and transferring those liabilities to the shell.. they would still have to pay the money in the end.

    110. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a 1%er, and you are deluding yourself. The 1% has assets and can't engage in tricks like this, because suing them is profitable, they have to pay damages. Tricks you are talking about are 99% tricks because 99% are "judgement proof", even if you win a suit against them, they've nothing to pay with.

      Silly peasant.

    111. Re:Recourse by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      If you were a 1%er, you'd know your facts are wrong as regards bulk sales. But maybe not. Each state does it differently, and the liabilities can be easily stanched... "there's nothing to pay with" holds true whether it's a small org or even more. Still better if there are taxes due by the seller.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    112. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you think?

    113. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps this should serve as a warning to all mankind about the ephemeral nature of all things. Never buy a lifetime anything because there's really no such thing. Reminds me of the case of that guy who bought a ticket on an airline for a few hundred thousand dollars, that was supposed to let him fly anywhere, first class, for life, without paying another cent. He used it a lot, then they told him they were rescinding it, and they sued each other, the airline sued him for fraud, (selling his companion-ticket rights for cash) and he sued them for reneging on the deal. Can't recall how that ended, but it sounds like the same thing as this, except for the number of customers this impacts, and the scale of the damage.

      I say, sue the bastards. :) Best of luck!

    114. Re:Recourse by Shadowkahn · · Score: 1

      Class actions are great, as long as you're a mass tort lawyer. If you're a victim, you get at best a few bucks. Oftentimes the lawyers walk away with millions while the class victims get a coupon for a certain percentage off of a product sold by the company that screwed them.

    115. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Joyent isn't textdrive, i.e. textdrive doesn't exist anymore, so the lifetime obligation has been exhausted.

      Given that the summary linked to the original offer...

      We're pleased to announce a special offer that combines three great products in our family -- TextDrive, Strongspace and Joyent -- available for a one-time payment of just $499.

      Want to try that again?

      2. Whose lifetime? The service's, i.e. no shorter than its lifetime.

      What they said was

      As long as we exist.

      The thing is, even though TextDrive, Inc. no longer exists, "three products in our family" and including two products other than TextDrive makes the offer explicitly from the parent company Joyent, Inc. The same company which still hosts the article author's site.

      So in other words this company SUCKS ASS and we all need to tell the world to Never do business with crooks like this.

      Yeah I AM RIGHT,
      Mr. White

    116. Re:Recourse by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      I've never heard of Joyent, the vast majority of people haven't either. *Everybody* has heard of Facebook.

      So I'll add one more thing:

      How many people have heard of Joyent and will care about your complain? Me thinks, not many.

      Not Much + Not Many + Not Many = you find another solution.

      We're done here.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    117. Re:Recourse by neyla · · Score: 1

      In principle, sure. In practice, when the wealthy do something, they do so trough a company, and that company holds no more assets than absolutely neseccary.

      Thus, you can sue, but any major win won't be against the company-owner, but instead against the company. The company folds, taking with it the miniscule fraction of wealth that happened to be invested in it.

      This ain't news. SCO folds, sure. They fail to pay enormous damages that they'd rightly owe to IBM and others. You're fooling yourself if you think that people who *owned* SCO are today living on the streets, though - no they're still wealthier than 99% of us.

    118. Re:Recourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. You absolutely can buy just the assets of a company, and not the liabilities. I personally have done this.

      It has nothing to do with bankruptcy at all; there are simply two kinds of sales: the whole company (assets + liabilities) or just the assets.

    119. Re:Recourse by Xeleema · · Score: 1

      When one company buys another they take on all liabilities (like long term contracts and loans) as well as all assets (like cash and computers).

      I've seen a common "mating dance" between corp before one "absorbs" the other. Goes like this;
      1) Owners of Corp A sign documents that merge all their agreed-upon assets into a new holding corp.
      2) Another form is signed dissolving Corp A and liquidating all assets to Corp B.
      3) Corp B signs the forms that acquire the Holding Corp that is no more than a skin-bag full of Corp A organs.

      This is how Corp A gets rid of "if we get bought, we'll give employees X amount for Y years of service" clauses that you previously negotiated.

      --
      "When I am king, you will be first against the wall..."
  3. Ask for a refund by qwijibo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're voluntarily discontinuing the service, they should be willing to pay the $499 back to those who ask for it.

    1. Re:Ask for a refund by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      This, right here.

      If it is available or you have a copy, go over the original terms and conditions docs you got when you purchased it. Unless there's weasel-wording in there (there likely is), you can possibly take them to small-claims court for at least the money you initially paid.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Ask for a refund by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

      They are clearly playing the "my lawyers and bigger than your lawyers" card. They're the corporation so some dope, powerless individual isn't going to have any power, right?

      Several people affected need to get together and pay a lawyer to write a letter...

    3. Re:Ask for a refund by cp5i6 · · Score: 1

      Plus interest and time value lost and potential value of data stored now that the service you paid full price for is no longer available.

    4. Re:Ask for a refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, he should ask for all the extra money he paid all those years believeing the account was secure for lifetime.

    5. Re:Ask for a refund by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      They're voluntarily discontinuing the service, they should be willing to pay the $499 back to those who ask for it.

      Plus interest. If they only pay back the original sum they've converted the lifetime offer into an interest free loan, under false pretenses, for their benefit. And that's not even accounting for inflation.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Ask for a refund by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      The interest on $499 (say $20 / year) would pay for a better specified dedicated server. The guys should demand get a full refund with interest.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    7. Re:Ask for a refund by ari_j · · Score: 5, Informative

      From their terms of service at the time of the offer, remedies are limited to refund of the amount paid and disputes over $250 must be arbitrated. "Lifetime" is not defined but their offer clearly says "as long as we exist" and they do still exist. If it were me, I would go for the refund and be thankful for 6 years of free use.

    8. Re:Ask for a refund by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      Arguably, they can claim that the loan's "interest" was the years of service they did provide. They should definitely be on the hook for the original fee, though.

    9. Re:Ask for a refund by qwijibo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you have to deal with a lawyer or go to court, you've already lost. Going down that path suggests your time is totally worthless, as is your money.

      I don't see why more people don't think of something as simple as responding with a polite request for a refund. Is it really worth their time to deal with bad PR and the deluge of hate emails/calls to their support people from a bunch of annoyed /.ers? Hint: it's really easy to waste many thousands of dollars on dealing with annoyed customers. There's got to be a limited number of people who have the lifetime product, so there's a finite amount that refunds would cost the company to get out of the deal with the least hassle.

    10. Re:Ask for a refund by thesameguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do they actually still exist? I was under the impression the agreement was with textdrive, and textdrive no longer exists (having been bought by Joyent).

    11. Re:Ask for a refund by WRX+SKy · · Score: 0

      Bingo. Wish I had mod points for you. His agreement was with Joyent. I do not believe the new owners have to honor that agreement as Joyent no longer exists.

    12. Re:Ask for a refund by qwijibo · · Score: 1

      The deal implies that you're SOL if they go out of business. In that case, backing up your data has always been your problem. I pay $20/year for 20GB of storage from Amazon. You can make up all sorts of reasons they're bad people, but why not get the $499 back, move on and go somewhere else. That's almost 25 years of service for more space from Amazon, so that seems like the path with the least wasted time.

    13. Re:Ask for a refund by Formorian · · Score: 1

      Um Joyent still exists, textdrive no longer does. So if your $200 for lifetime with textdrive, fine company is gone. But some people paid $500 with Joynet, as long as that company exists shouldn't they either keep the lifetime or give back $500?

    14. Re:Ask for a refund by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Usually when a company buys another company, they are obligated by law to assume company one's contractual obligations. For example Saturn Car Company may no longer exist but its parent GM must still provide warranty service & 20 years of stock parts under the law. (Ditto with Plymouth which does not exist but Chrysler... and later Daimler-Chrysler... must still continue warranty service & parts.)

      BTW I wouldn't make a big deal about the refund. If the company refuses to refund $499, then negotiate a refund of half that, plus a free account on their current service. It's not worth the effort to goto small-claims court over a tiny $249. (Of course if they refuse to refund Any money then I'd file the claim.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    15. Re:Ask for a refund by Formorian · · Score: 1

      Some people may have paid the original $200 for lifetime with textdrive, but some may have paid the $500 with joyent. As Joyent still exists the $500 people have a right to refund or continued service IMO. Those with textdrive, since that no longer exists (unless something was sent by joyent stating they would honor it until their company lifetime or yours, whichever is shorter) then no you shouldn't get your $200 back.

    16. Re:Ask for a refund by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Copyright 2004–2006 TextDrive Inc. TextDrive is a trademark of Joyent Inc."

      It looks to me like the agreement was with Joyent the whole time. At the very least they were a party to the agreement. Joyent still exists.

    17. Re:Ask for a refund by rtfa-troll · · Score: 2

      In most legal situations the purchaser of a company continues the responsibilities of the previous company. The term is slightly ambiguous but in a "contract of adhesion" between a customer and large company I understand that terms are always supposed to be interpreted in favour of the customer where they are unclear.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    18. Re:Ask for a refund by Formorian · · Score: 1

      How have you already lost if you go to court? Small claims doesn't cost that much and can resolve many of these issues many times in your favor. I know a few people who have taken ATT/Verizon/Comcast/etc (big companies) to small claims and won over things here and there. These big companies sometimes send people and sometimes don't. You still have to argue your case to the judge either way, but since it's small claims and you rep yourself, most judges are more leniet and will let you kinda just talk out what your view is, as long as you bring backing up documentation.

      I think small claims is one of the biggest tools the common person has, and should be used more. Don't know about you but $500 is worth a couple hours or less of my time. And sometimes it's the principal of the matter that even if $X isn't worth a couple hours some people still do it.

    19. Re:Ask for a refund by WRX+SKy · · Score: 1

      Whoops! Textdrive no longer exists... but the point remains the same.

    20. Re:Ask for a refund by RandomUsername99 · · Score: 1

      Yes. I can't sell a thousand people lifetime personal chefing service at $5,000 a piece, turn around and 'sell' the company to my friend, and have them immediately sunset the service, claiming that it's a new company that no longer has to honor old service agreements.

    21. Re:Ask for a refund by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>Is it really worth their time to deal with bad PR and the deluge of hate emails/calls to their support people from a bunch of annoyed /.ers?

      (1) You hire accountants and lawyers so you Don't have to waste your valuable time. (2) Let's slashdot Joyent. Like we did with the LendInk-destroying authors and a few months ago, that Candace Scwanger lady that stole a photographer's photo and threatened to sue him (she dropped the case last I heard).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    22. Re:Ask for a refund by Formorian · · Score: 1

      Well to this submitter maybe (although I was under impression original textdrive lifetime was $200 and new joyent was $500, so he says textdrive but says few hundred, not couple not sure) but to Joyent purchasers why shouldn't they get refund. Company still exists.

    23. Re:Ask for a refund by jemenake · · Score: 1

      Because the amount is so low, he can go to small-claims court, and lawyers aren't allowed there. Mano-a-mano, like John Wayne woulda done it. Odds are, the company wouldn't even bother sending someone to defend the case.

      But this whole "vanishing lifetime contract" seems *so* asking for a class-action suit, that I'll bet it's just a ploy to get some users to walk away. If you make a scene about it, I'll bet they'll just cave and let you stay. They're just trying to whittle down the number of revenue-less users.

    24. Re:Ask for a refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had modpoints, you would have modded up someone who was wrong, and no one would have been able to point out that you don't understand the situation at all.

    25. Re:Ask for a refund by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      This is an interesting discussion. Verizon sold me DSL wth a promise of charging $14.99 "for life". I saved the image to my c: drive for future reference. I don't anticipate Verizon going out of business, so I'm curious if they will someday try to weasel out of it. Maybe they'll do like Cingular:

      It was not a life offer, but instead an offer through my employer at $10 plus per minute billing (government rate). One day I got the bill and it was the $30 unlimited minutes plan. I called and they said they discontinued the $10 plan. Didn't even bother me to tell me ahead of time about the switch, so I refused to pay and they put a black mark on my credit report (though my rating is so high it made no difference).

      Their greed led to a lost customer: For life. Now I use VirginMobile for $5/month for 30 minutes. Cingular... now ATT... can go suck it.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    26. Re:Ask for a refund by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      I offer you a contract that will pay you $100 every week for the rest of your life if you send me $1000 today.
      Tomorrow my company will be sold to my brother and he won't have to honor that agreement.
      Do we have a deal?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    27. Re:Ask for a refund by qwijibo · · Score: 2

      I'm basing the "already lost" comment on experience with two of my mom's cases. She prevailed in both cases, one in small claims and one via arbitration, but the time and effort that went into both was far in excess of a couple of hours. It's a part time job for a few weeks for people who don't have the experience with the process and need to learn on the fly.

      I wholeheartedly agree that the affected users are entitled to a refund. However, I'm always amazed that people will suggest calling lawyers, taking them to court, or class action lawsuits before fully exploring the "I don't accept your new terms, I'd like a refund" option. From other responses, it sounds like they're probably giving refunds to those who request it, saving everyone time and money.

    28. Re:Ask for a refund by Formorian · · Score: 1

      So:

      1. Start company
      2. Sell lifetimes at $500
      3. Close company
      4. offer 1/2 refund
      5. Profit?

    29. Re:Ask for a refund by WRX+SKy · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Your contract terms are for the rest of MY life.Your brother's company will have to honor that agreement... and you should review your T's and C's more carefully. Per the way back machine link, the textdrive offer was for the rest of TEXTDRIVE's life. (BTW - I incorrectly said Joyent above... Joyent is actually the new owner)

    30. Re:Ask for a refund by Formorian · · Score: 1

      I get ya. And totally agree about asking for refund first.

    31. Re:Ask for a refund by jimbolauski · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bingo. Wish I had mod points for you. His agreement was with Joyent. I do not believe the new owners have to honor that agreement as Joyent no longer exists.

      Absolutely Not, the only way to get out of that agreement is a refund or bankruptcy, you can't just buy the assets when you buy a company, liabilities and commitments both are transferred to the purchasing company. Before the Rickets bought the Cubs the Cubs filed for Bankruptcy so that any liens from the Tribune could not follow the Cubs to their new owner. When Fiat bought Chrysler they still have to honor all commitments that were not wiped in the bankruptcy pensions, warranties, loans all were honored if the bankruptcy didn't release them from it. If the world worked the way you think it does I could get a loan from the bank for my LLC then sell the company to my brother for $1 but the debt would not follow and since it was an LLC I would not be personally held liable and my brother would get the pile of cash.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    32. Re:Ask for a refund by hpa · · Score: 2

      I guess they were waiting for the recent Supreme Court decision which basically says that a company can say "you can't sue us because we told you so."

    33. Re:Ask for a refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When DSL is "not available" on your DSLAM (AKA whenever they say) it will end probably.

    34. Re:Ask for a refund by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      + 1 Winner!
      Best post of this thread. Joyent advertised the life account would last "as long as we exist" and they still exist, so they broke the contract. They are obligated to refund the money to the other party in the contract.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    35. Re:Ask for a refund by NJRoadfan · · Score: 2

      Except its a myth that car companies have to stock replacement parts for 20 years (or any length of time). That is what aftermarket parts manufacturers and junkyards are for.

    36. Re:Ask for a refund by WRX+SKy · · Score: 1

      I've had to reply to about 7 comments with this same response... The offer (an extension of the contract) specifically defined lifetime as "as long as we exist". Terminating the contract is actually defined IN THE CONTRACT. It's perfectly legal to kill those contracts.

    37. Re:Ask for a refund by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      If it were me, I would go for the refund and be thankful for 6 years of free use.

      Free?
      Six years of 5% interest on $499 is worth about $170
      Inflation means $499 in 2006 dollars is worth about $40 more in 2012

      Just getting his money back = a loss.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    38. Re:Ask for a refund by omnichad · · Score: 1

      They'll probably just make it unwantable. Much like you see with the unlimited cellular plans. There aren't very many around, because people want new things that aren't available under the strict wording of the unlimited agreements.

    39. Re:Ask for a refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lawyers are generally allowed in small claims for corporations/busineses, or when the individual has a good excuse for not being at the proceeding, and of course if the lawyer represents him/herself. the exact situations a lawyer can be a representative in small claims vary a bit from state to state

    40. Re:Ask for a refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are now offering a refund or equivalent hosting services:
      http://discuss.joyent.com/viewtopic.php?id=33682&p=9

    41. Re:Ask for a refund by timeOday · · Score: 1
      5% interest, what decade is that from? The APY on a 5 year CD is 1.85% with a minimum $1000 deposit.

      .

      The so-called time-value of money hasn't existed in practical terms for 10 years.

    42. Re:Ask for a refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the top google results currently show she is wanted for hitting 2 people with her SUV while intoxicated.

    43. Re:Ask for a refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your reasoning is truly moronic.

    44. Re:Ask for a refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Companies never die, they just get put into stasis. It is far too much work to go to the effort of actually dissolving a company when you acquire it. Instead, the company becomes a "wholly owned subsidiary of" the purchasing company. So while Plymouth may not produce any more cars, have any employees or own any assets, within Chrysler it probably still exists as a legal entity. Just mothballed.

      Some of the stuff I work with goes 4 companies deep due to the various acquisitions that form my current employer.

    45. Re:Ask for a refund by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They are required by federal law to warantee emissions related parts for 10 years. That includes the majority of the car.

    46. Re:Ask for a refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the reason that doesn't work is because the liability stays with the old company, which you still own, since you merely sold its assets. You could have the LLC declare bankruptcy at that point, but that's not any different than if you hadn't sold whatever made up assets you are talking about to your brother.

    47. Re:Ask for a refund by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I can't find a citation, but I thought that at least in California there was a product support requirement (including repair & parts) for 7 years. Is that a myth too, or maybe it's only for electronics?

    48. Re:Ask for a refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A company that is bought doesn't seize to exist. It gets absorbed by the new company. That's the law of it around here at least, and it quite probably is there as well - otherwise liabilities wouldn't follow the company in a deal. The company only seizes to exist if it bankrupts itself. Now image-wise the company of course disappears since the new company will use the new logo and so on, rebrand all services, but that's just cosmetics. Legally the old company is part of the new company.

    49. Re:Ask for a refund by PRMan · · Score: 1

      It depends on intent. If the court decides that your business was made only to scam people, then no, you can't do that. You'll be convicted for wire fraud.

      If you made a good faith effort to provide the services, then failed (sound familiar?), then your intent was to actually provide what you sold.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    50. Re:Ask for a refund by PRMan · · Score: 1

      And having written the warranty software for a car company, I can assure you that they take this VERY seriously. Both in providing parts until the timeframe and in counting the days until they no longer have to.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    51. Re:Ask for a refund by fnj · · Score: 1

      Look up "Present Value" and "Future Value". The amount invested at present value stands at the original dollar value inflated to today. The amount STOLEN is the future value of that money at client's actuarially expected death, minus the present value.

    52. Re:Ask for a refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get about an 8% return yearly, but then I don't let my money sit around and do nothing. To each their own.

    53. Re:Ask for a refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't free service. It cost me $1400.

    54. Re:Ask for a refund by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if you put $500 into Apple stock six years ago (somehow purchasing approximately 9.427 shares), you would now have $5091, or about 47% APY. Just saying.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    55. Re:Ask for a refund by timeOday · · Score: 1

      OK, go ahead and issue me a 5-year bond at 40% APY. You can keep the extra 7% you'll earn as a management fee. Do we have a deal?

    56. Re:Ask for a refund by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I'm crazy, not nuts. The point is that there are things you could reasonably have done with your money (and that I've been encouraging my friends to do for many, many years) that would have done far, far better than 5% per year, and that letting this company off by refunding your money with only 5% interest means that if they had even remotely competent financial advice, they made a profit on the deal (ignoring, for the moment, any costs that they incurred for providing the service). Even just playing the NASDAQ composite over that time period would have netted them a solid 6% APY. And that's without doing anything overly risky like playing the options market, high frequency trading, etc.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    57. Re:Ask for a refund by Barny · · Score: 1

      1.85% is pretty terrible.

      http://www.nab.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/nab/nab/home/Personal_Finance/5/2/1/

      I use one of these, close it every 4mths and bring the balance forward into a new one, means I have 5% with no minimum.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    58. Re:Ask for a refund by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Even just playing the NASDAQ composite over that time period would have netted them a solid 6% APY.

      What? The total returns of the NASDAQ composite for the last 5 years was 12.75%. And not risky? During the most of the last 5 years the total returns over the previous 5 years was negative. This is not what a steady 6% annual return looks like.

    59. Re:Ask for a refund by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Sounds pretty clever, so long as they keep letting you repeatedly milk their intro offer.

    60. Re:Ask for a refund by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Ooops, it looks like the US dollar has consistently gone down against the Australian dollar in recent years.

    61. Re:Ask for a refund by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I should have said, "has been awfully volatile against the Australian dollar..." Of course it could as easily go up or down in the future. But since my income and most expenses are in dollars, those swings make the 5% look a lot less steady.

    62. Re:Ask for a refund by Toonol · · Score: 1

      You've been corrected at least seven times. If a company is purchased, obligations are assumed. Do you think all the contracts they signed are nullified? Do you think all their debtors don't have to pay them any more? Think about the implications of what you're saying, and you'll find it can't be true.

    63. Re:Ask for a refund by mr_walrus · · Score: 1

      the shear raving implausibility of Corporations being able to easily dump liabilities with sleight of hand sales tricks makes me think it MUST be true in the USA :) :) :)

    64. Re:Ask for a refund by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Yes, but hindsight is 20/20. Can you find me any investments today that you can guarantee a 5% return for the next 6 years? In today's climate you're doing pretty good if you can net 2% (and that's assuming you've got a decent sum to invest). To have a shot at anything more you're going to have to take some risks.

    65. Re:Ask for a refund by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Sure, if they had pulled this stunt two years ago, that answer would have been different. That isn't relevant. They didn't do this two years ago. They're doing it now.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    66. Re:Ask for a refund by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Yup. Are you saying you think this company just put that $500 in a bank account? Companies don't usually do that with their cash. They either spend it or they invest it. So what bank accounts or other guaranteed investments pay is not a relevant question for whether the company should have to pay a higher interest rate on that money.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    67. Re:Ask for a refund by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Emissions related parts only include things like the catalytic converter, o2 sensors (usually generic Bosch part with car specific harness), etc. No car company is going to produce things like interior trim, door weather stripping, major body parts, etc. for 20 years.

    68. Re:Ask for a refund by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      If that were the case, many HDTV manufacturers would be in trouble. They don't seem to stock parts. If it breaks just outside of warranty, you usually have to buy a new one since it can't be fixed.

    69. Re:Ask for a refund by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Emissions related parts include anything in the engine. If your valve gets worn, and thus allows leakage, that's an emissions related part. Likely not covered under the emissions warranty, but still "could" get a maker in serious trouble if they didn't allow access to a part causing an emissions failure. So in practice, makers consider the 10 year requirement to be on all moving parts. And if you cover almost anything under it, it's sometimes cheaper/easier to cover everything than explicitly enumerate a list of parts covered/not covered.

  4. Do you have the money to take them to court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Cause if you don't, you're probably screwed. If nothing else figure out the interest on your original $500, take them to court for the new amount, get it back and basically have gotten all their services free since you signed up because of them voiding their contract.

    1. Re:Do you have the money to take them to court? by qwijibo · · Score: 2

      It would be a small claims case, so not much to file a case.

      However, the reference to something coming in February 2006 implies they've been in business for over 6 years. That suggests that if they're smart, they just refund the $499 to anyone who asks, or offer them double in future service credits. How long would $1000 worth of service credits last?

    2. Re:Do you have the money to take them to court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All credits expire after 5 years, so they will last at most 5 years.

  5. What are they thinking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well that is some bullshit, pure and simple.

  6. Class action by Rinisari · · Score: 1

    I smell a class action, if enough people rely on this lifetime service, and a loss of that service would demonstrably financially harm them.

    1. Re:Class action by multicoregeneral · · Score: 0

      All depends on how they defined lifetime. I don't know this case specifically, but I would be shocked if lifetime was defined as anything but "the lifetime of the product" or as long as we feel like doing it. Sucks, I know, but I doubt it's illegal.

      --
      This signature intentionally left blank.
    2. Re:Class action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the fucking excerpt, it said clearly that as long as the company exists the lifetime offer is valid.

      This is also reflected in the original ad which points out it's the same company as now.

    3. Re:Class action by scubamage · · Score: 1

      If they clearly state "as long as we exist" as one of the selling points, then I don't think that they can wrangle out of it quite that easily.

    4. Re:Class action by cp5i6 · · Score: 1

      create a new company and sell the assets to the new entity for 1$

      done.

    5. Re:Class action by SwashbucklingCowboy · · Score: 1

      TOS specifically mentions that disputes go to arbitration. Don't know how binding that is in California.

    6. Re:Class action by wfolta · · Score: 1

      The link points to the original offer, which does not qualify the offer at all. That offer does have links to a FAQ, an Acceptable Use page, and a Terms of Service page. The FAQ link is dead, while the Terms of Service is specific to one of the parts of the offer that was priced monthly and thus doesn't acknowledge a Lifetime Offer.

      It does look like you got 6 years of bundled service for $500, which might be perceived as a reasonable value compared to the services individually on a month-by-month basis, though not perhaps by today's standards with the huge ultra-discounted web hosts. Sounds like an uphill battle.

    7. Re:Class action by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure that it's not binding in California. I seem to remember that California amended their consumer protection act to get around the arbitration thing. Though, to a point class action for such a small amount of money are useless. Small claims are better, you'll almost certainly get the full amount of the money back. And you'll recoup the filing costs as well. You don't need a lawyer, you can present all the information yourself to the judge. And on the upside, if they don't show, it's an automatic summery judgement against them. Chances are though if you file, they'll settle right away, simply to avoid court.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re:Class action by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that _they no longer exist_. That seems a pretty clear way to get out of "as long as we exist"...

      The original agreement was with Textdrive. Textdrive is now Joyent -- therefore Textdrive does not exist.

    9. Re:Class action by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      It does look like you got 6 years of bundled service for $500, which might be perceived as a reasonable value

      Only if one completely ignores the time-value of money. That's why loans come with interest rates.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re:Class action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Wikipedia page for Joyent states there already is a class-action pending but doesn't have a linked citation.

    11. Re:Class action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus fucking christ, at least read the god damned COMMENTS if you can't be assed to read the article. Textdrive is a service owned by Joyent, and HAS BEEN, the entire time. Plain as fucking day. Your argument is god damned retarded. You may as well go around claiming Apple doesn't have to honor iPhone warranties, because Apple is not iPhone. Joyent is what we call a "company" and Textdrive is what we call a "product" or "service" just so you know the correct terms in the future.

    12. Re:Class action by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      Holy non sequitur Batman! I'm referring of course to "completely ignores". One would assume that when purchasing a service from a company you'd be pricing in the expected lifetime of the company and whether that justifies the purchase price and whether you'd be better of doing something else with those monies.

    13. Re:Class action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, arbitration agreements are binding everywhere. California tried to get rid of them but the Federal Courts told them too bad.

    14. Re:Class action by fnj · · Score: 1

      Inflicting arbitration as a term of sale represents an unbalanced contract with the corporation exerting its superior weight unfairly.

    15. Re:Class action by fnj · · Score: 1

      Dear Textdrive/Joyent: good luck with that, you mother loving crooks.

    16. Re:Class action by fnj · · Score: 1

      Bingo. People are so illiterate on this subject.

    17. Re:Class action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True that Textdrive doesn't exist, but Textdrive was a division of Joyent that has been subsequently disolved back into Joyent. On top of that Joyent was clearly a party to, and put their name on, the original arangement at the time it was purchased. Joyent still exists. Therefore: Joyent is still responsible for continuing the agreement or refunding the full value of the service.

  7. Good luck by colin_faber · · Score: 2

    Reading the Ad offer, and actual ToS from the time this will probably be an uphill battle, consult your local lawyer but likely they'll point out the many ways they can wiggle out of this deal.

  8. In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Thanks for helping us get off the ground by infusing us with large sums of money up front - now fuck off."

  9. similar situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had a similar problem happen with a web hosting firm that offered lifetime contracts and then got bought out.

    I did what some others here have suggested and told them they needed to refund the money (or do some prorated refund) or I was going to get the lawyers of the organization I represented on them. This was a bit of a ruse since I probably couldn't of gotten my boss to go to our lawyer, but I figured something should back me up.

    I got them to back off, but that was more private than this situation. There is likely to be a backlash on this one since it's managed to come up here....

  10. Hrm... No disclaimers... by fruitbane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, I read the archived FAQ and TOS and I didn't see any disclaimers. Technically, a company that lists something like a lifetime guarantee or lifetime warranty can get away with only warrantying or guaranteeing the product or service for its market life. Meaning my frying pan with a lifetime warranty is good for what the company deems the lifetime of the frying pan, modified by federal and local laws on what constitutes an acceptable minimum lifetime period. On the other hand, the ad you linked via the Wayback Machine didn't say lifetime, but rather the life of the company. If they've been bought and changed hands they could be considered a new company. Either way, I'd say there certainly seems to be the possibility that they could be legally liable for breach of contract. Just make sure if you decide to take them to small claims court that there's no activity in your own history with their service that violates their TOS and Acceptable Use provisions, because they can use that against you.

    1. Re:Hrm... No disclaimers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yup, I read it too. Though they seem rather fleshed out on how to protect themselves and what is expected on the behavior of their users... there were no specific providisions related to that deal. In their deal, with a statment so broad as to say effective, "as long as we exist", well, the company screwed themselves there.
      There are certainly ways to get out of their obligations, but first option to ensure a chance at their public image surviving would be to at least refund the money, offer credits, and ensure the survival of all hosted information for at least one calendar year from the decision date to allow time for users choosing to move on to migrate their data.
      They got off the ground, great... now they need to live up to their claims or go back down to the bottom.

    2. Re:Hrm... No disclaimers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why SEARS is fucking awesome. They will exchange any craftsman tool with no receipt, even if its from 1956 and rusted to shit.

    3. Re:Hrm... No disclaimers... by fruitbane · · Score: 1

      L. L. Bean is the same way. I actually didn't return an item to them because I got years of use out of it and didn't feel like being a jackass.

    4. Re:Hrm... No disclaimers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming they are willing to spend the time/money to investigate your usage and then show up to present it in small claims court.

  11. Answer by Zouden · · Score: 0

    a) They shouldn't have offered a lifetime account if they didn't intend to honour it (though they're not legally obliged to), but
    b) You shouldn't have paid 'a few hundred bucks' for a service of indeterminant length and value.

    Also, doesn't dropbox offer like 2.5gb for free? Why pay for a lifetime service if it's going to be superceded?
    Would you have taken a "lifetime" dial-up account from AOL if it was offered?

    --
    "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
  12. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Charlie Bucket: But it didn't close forever, it's open right now.
    Mrs. Bucket: Ah, yes, well sometimes, when grown ups say "forever," they mean, "a very long time."

    When businessmen and politicians say "forever" they mean... remember your children's stories.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And when my girlfriend said forever she meant a week lol.

  13. OMGLAWYERSUESUESUE! by scubamage · · Score: 1

    Seriously though, for that amount your best bet is to take them to small claims court.

  14. Watch your back by joebok · · Score: 1

    They are obviously saying that they are coming to kill you on 10/31 (and presumably anybody else whose service needs to be terminated). That is the only way out for them - let the rest of us beware of "lifetime" agreements!

  15. Who's Lifetime... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

    yours, or their business model's?

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:Who's Lifetime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whose.

    2. Re:Who's Lifetime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whores.

  16. Ritual suicide at sundown? by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    Or maybe they're planning on sending some people with bats around to make sure his lifetime commitment comes a close on schedule.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  17. That settles that... by rwven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, I guess I know to stay away from this company in the future... Total fail.

  18. In Lionel Hutz's words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL_pRiXov7Q

  19. Re:Class action / "As long as we exist" = lifetime by neurocutie · · Score: 1
    'How long is it good for? As long as we exist.'"

    I think this statement is fairly clear as to the definition of "lifetime". No they could re-incorporate, etc so that the old "they" no longer exists, but otherwise... I'd say that its time for a lawsuit, or at least start by having a lawyer-friend draft a simple letter that threatens a lawsuit...

  20. Re:They are a company by jythie · · Score: 1

    There are limits to what a company can do, esp when it has agreed to provide a service and already received payment, which is the case here.

  21. Terms of Service, Additional Terms 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060203053316/http://www.textdrive.com/tos

    "1. Indemnification. Customer agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Company and the employees and agents of Company (each an “Indemnified Party”) against any losses, claims, damages, liabilities, penalties, actions, proceedings or judgments (collectively, “Losses”) to which an Indemnified Party may become subject and which Losses arise out of, or relate to this Agreement or Customer’s use of the Services and Products, and will reimburse an Indemnified Party for all legal and other expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by such Indemnified Party in connection with investigating, defending or settling any Loss whether or not in connection with pending or threatened litigation in which such Indemnified Party is a party."

    You got screwed.

  22. Why should any company be loyal today? by Aviation+Pete · · Score: 4, Insightful
    In the workplace we have learned to trust our employers just for the duration of the current project, if at all. Why would you now expect a faceless entity run by weasels to be any different?

    I have learned this also the hard way. I once bought a Peugeot bicycle with a lifetime warranty for the frame, which duly broke a few years after. I first wrote Peugeot, and they pointed me at their French headquarters. I wrote them, even in French, and was referred to the bike dealer, where the circle continued. Long story short: I never got anything for my warranty besides the inflated price for the bike and the lesson what a lifetime warranty is *really* worth these days.

    I will never again buy something again from Peugeot, but they sure couldn't care less. The government covers their losses anyway.

    --
    You know it's time for the next revolution when your rulers' names end with roman numerals.
    1. Re:Why should any company be loyal today? by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 1

      Long story short: I never got anything for my warranty besides the inflated price for the bike and the lesson what a lifetime warranty is *really* worth these days.

      So, they gave you your money back, adjusted for inflation? And that money covered the price of the whole bike, and not just the frame? If so, that sounds pretty reasonable. What more could they do (other than perhaps compensate you for the time it took to get them to honor their warranty)?

    2. Re:Why should any company be loyal today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will never again buy something again from Peugeot, but they sure couldn't care less. The government covers their losses anyway.

      In that case taxpayers ARE supporting Peugeot, like it or not...

    3. Re:Why should any company be loyal today? by itsme1234 · · Score: 1

      I think he means he got to pay upfront a large amount of money upfront (original cost).

    4. Re:Why should any company be loyal today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading Comprehension.

    5. Re:Why should any company be loyal today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, they gave you your money back, adjusted for inflation?

      The way I read it, he did not receive anything for his troubles other than an education. I think what he meant to write was:

      I never got anything for my warranty besides the opportunity to pay an inflated price for the bike and the lesson what a lifetime warranty is *really* worth these days.

    6. Re:Why should any company be loyal today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He means the only effect of the warranty on his life was to inflate the price of the bike that he purchased.

    7. Re:Why should any company be loyal today? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I once bought a Peugeot bicycle with a lifetime warranty for the frame, which duly broke a few years after. I first wrote Peugeot, and they pointed me at their French headquarters. I wrote them, even in French, and was referred to the bike dealer, where the circle continued. Long story short: I never got anything for my warranty besides the inflated price for the bike and the lesson what a lifetime warranty is *really* worth these days.

      Had you lived in that well known socialst mecca, the United Kingdom, you could have taken your claim to Trading Standards, who would probably have helped you.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    8. Re:Why should any company be loyal today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Long story short: I never got anything for my warranty besides the inflated price for the bike and the lesson what a lifetime warranty is *really* worth these days.

      So, they gave you your money back, adjusted for inflation? And that money covered the price of the whole bike, and not just the frame? If so, that sounds pretty reasonable. What more could they do (other than perhaps compensate you for the time it took to get them to honor their warranty)?

      I think he meant that he got nothing, but the original price of the bike was inflated due to the perceived value of a life-time warranty (which turned out to be worthless).

    9. Re:Why should any company be loyal today? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I must respectfully ask that you refrain from insulting weasels in such a crude way. This is a public forum after all and it is patently unfair to compare such a noble animal to the likes of a corporate executive.

    10. Re:Why should any company be loyal today? by Aviation+Pete · · Score: 1

      So, they gave you your money back, adjusted for inflation? And that money covered the price of the whole bike, and not just the frame? If so, that sounds pretty reasonable. What more could they do (other than perhaps compensate you for the time it took to get them to honor their warranty)?

      No, no, I never got anything back moneywise, only letters which said they are sorry. Yeah, right.

      Please try to understand what I wrote literally, and do not interpret it they way you want. I got an inflated *price*, not an inflated refund. I hope the difference is clear.

      After all, they had my money already and saw me as a nuisance.

      --
      You know it's time for the next revolution when your rulers' names end with roman numerals.
    11. Re:Why should any company be loyal today? by Aviation+Pete · · Score: 1

      I must respectfully ask that you refrain from insulting weasels in such a crude way. This is a public forum after all and it is patently unfair to compare such a noble animal to the likes of a corporate executive.

      You are absolutely right. Thank you for enlightening me. I made a terrible mistake and will not do so again, promised!

      --
      You know it's time for the next revolution when your rulers' names end with roman numerals.
  23. Are you sure you even want to keep them? by jandrese · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It sounds to me like they're struggling financially and are trying to convert all of you "lifetime" folks back into monthly paying members so they can pay their bills. My guess is that for a measly half a gig you could find a much better deal elsewhere and a lot of very annoyed people are probably going to do exactly that. There is a good chance this company won't exist in a year regardless, and this is just giving you a head start on finding a new cloud hosting company.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Are you sure you even want to keep them? by rhsanborn · · Score: 1

      I read through the thread on their forums. Jason Hoffman, the guy currently at the top of the org chart claims they've received new funding and they are starting to get scrutinized for the liabilities on the lifetime accounts by financial auditors. They are now offering 5 years of one of their other packages or a full refund of the original price. It still reeks and they deserve to get hit with a strong lawsuit.

  24. It's the government's fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If there were less regulations on the industry then this company would never be able to do this. Your best bet is to vote for Ron Paul and to hope that in the future we will have a free enough market that companies will honor their contracts without having to screw their customers because of government regulation.

    1. Re:It's the government's fault. by Teun · · Score: 1

      LOL!

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    2. Re:It's the government's fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best part is some fucking retarded RonPaulBot voted me up. Libertarians have moved into the coveted "cannot even mock them anymore" territory, they are that oblivious to reality.

    3. Re:It's the government's fault. by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Because libertarians are known for thinking contracts shouldn't need to be honored, right?

  25. As long as we exist by icebike · · Score: 0

    One could make the claim that since Joyent is not the originator of TextDrive, and has only ONE of the original textdrive founders, that the referred to "WE" no longer exists.

    Of course there is also that bit where Jason Hoffman, who also co-founded Joyent, says: "Yes. Sorry. I just made bail.".

    It was a silly promise to make on Textdrive's part, and a silly promise to believe on the user's part.
    I've bought lifetime memberships. I have no delusional expectation of enjoying them for the rest of MY life.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:As long as we exist by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      If they pull this kind of language B.S. then they are a disreputable company. I'm glad that it got brought up on slashdot... I'm sure a lot of us will just choose to never use them.

    2. Re:As long as we exist by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      It was a silly promise to make on Textdrive's part, and a silly promise to believe on the user's part.

      Not really - at $499, these early buyers were, in practice, a type of investor in the company. It would have been obvious to any of the buyers how that business model was going to work.

      You can't bring on an investor, pay him some dividends, and then say, "yeah, sorry, we're ending your investment class. Thanks for being an early investor, though."

      Now, I'm sure a lawyer will point out that they're not really an investor. But that's the legal argument, not the ethical one.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:As long as we exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually... my grandfather owned a significant chunk of a mountain which a fledgling ski resort wanted to buy. as part of the sale price, they offered lifetime ski passes, with a transfer clause -- and then honored them for almost 60 years, including at least 2 sales. of course, now that they've sold to a multinational, all the lawyers they could afford found a way to wiggle out of their obligations, but they still had to tread very carefully.

    4. Re:As long as we exist by icebike · · Score: 1

      If there was a bankruptcy some where along the way to that sale, the multi-national may be well within their rights to terminate the agreement,.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:As long as we exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do these people think they are? American Airlines?

  26. Nothing In TOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their terms of service at the time make no reference to having the ability to cancelling your services. ( http://web.archive.org/web/20060203053316/http://www.textdrive.com/tos ) They sold you a lifetime service agreement and they should be bound by it. The only time they should be able to end your service is to shut down, or determine that you're violating their accepted use policy ( http://web.archive.org/web/20060203030014/http://www.textdrive.com/aup )

    This of course all relies on their terms and service not updating to invalidate these points. So check your current TOS and AUP.

  27. Terms of Service by zentigger · · Score: 1

    Your answer is in the terms of service:

    The exclusive remedy against Company for any damages whatsoever to Customer arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be the refund of the fees paid by Customer to Company with respect to the then current term of this Agreement

    --

    the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head

    1. Re:Terms of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might not settle the issue as thoroughly as you might think. This is called a liquidated damages clause, and this one looks to have been modified by somebody to say "damages whatsoever." Usually they are broader, covering any breach. If I were you I'd write them a letter indicating your expectation that they continue to honor their agreement, and that you reject their proposed termination. If you get any slack, sue them them asking for what's called "specific performance" -- ie, you want the judge to make them do the thing they promised to do. If they point to this clause, you say you're not asking for damages.

    2. Re:Terms of Service by rhsanborn · · Score: 1

      This is in the current TOS. Some early buyers have pulled the TOS from 2006 out and it apparently reads differently, particularly with regards to arbitration.

  28. Re:They are a company by RandomUsername99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wrong. If a company does not provide the goods or services that they sold you, in this case, a lifetime account, that's illegal in the US. There aren't even any shady "subject to change" clauses in the original ToS.

    If I, as a company, were to sell you a lifetime of free car repair for $5,000 today, and then tomorrow say I was not going to do it anymore, even though I wasn't shutting down, simply because I felt that the service had 'run its course', then that would be illegal. This is no different.

  29. Obligatory by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1, Funny

    Waitress: Sir, this card's expired!
    Professor: But it's good for a lifetime!
    Waitress: Well, yours expired!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  30. Start at the beginning. by Dzimas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Email them, politely requesting a full refund. They entered into a contract with you to provide service for "as long as they exist." They are attempting to unilaterally modify the terms of the agreement. While companies often try to grant themselves the right to modify a contract at will, courts have found this to be an unreasonable practice. See Douglas v. Talk America - (http://pub.bna.com/eclr/0675424_071807.pdf ) Should the company fail to respond, investigate filing a case in small claims court requesting a full refund plus interest and reasonable expenses. You may run into difficulty if you reside outside the State of California, because you agreed to undertake all legal action in that state when you signed up. That said, you can include the cost of travel in your suit. You'd have to do a bit of research before filing, but I suspect the company would chose to issue a refund instead of dealing with the hassle of a small claims appearance.

    1. Re:Start at the beginning. by onefriedrice · · Score: 1

      In other words, ask for a refund; whether or not you get it, just move on and be sure to never do business with Joyent again.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    2. Re:Start at the beginning. by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      The first step in taking legal action is a demand letter, which can be considered a firm request for a refund. What you do after that point really boils down to how strongly you feel about making a point. Personally, receiving 6 years of service for a few hundred bucks strikes me as reasonable. But since it only costs $30 to file a claim for under $1,500 with the Superior Court of California, it can be worth filing even if you have no intent of attending court because you live outside the jurisdiction. The defendant will receive notice of your filing and must choose how to respond. If they offer a pro-rated settlement, it's best to take it and withdraw the action. If they ignore your filing, you can simply withdraw before the court date which will be months or more in the future.

    3. Re:Start at the beginning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "you can include the cost of travel in your suit."

      Good luck with that. IAAL.

    4. Re:Start at the beginning. by rhsanborn · · Score: 1

      They are currently offering refunds or 5 years use of a different hosting package.

    5. Re:Start at the beginning. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amend that to: spread the word about the outcome as far as you reasonably can. We live in an age of easy communications, which actually provides significant power to the consumer.

    6. Re:Start at the beginning. by fnj · · Score: 1

      No; if the crooks don't pay up, taking time value of money into account fully, sue the crooks' asses in Small Claims for sure.

  31. sue them for threat of bodily harm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only way to interpreter "As this service is one of our earliest offerings, and has now run its course, your lifetime service will end on October 31, 2012" is that they will come and they will kill you.

    Any reasonable person (the legal standard) would have fear of imminent bodily harm. "your lifetime service will end on October 31, 2012" has no other possible interpretation (it is not capitalized) - so go ahead and sue them for all they're worth!

  32. Lawyer up, by Howard+Beale · · Score: 2

    class action lawsuit.

    1. Re:Lawyer up, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Class action suits are for the lawyers, not for the people. If this turns into a class action suit, you'll get a few bucks and 2 years of service on their new program, and the lawyers will get 25% of the total cost plus their expenses. Go small claims court for $499 and you win.

    2. Re:Lawyer up, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's only any good if you fancy a free big mac in about 5 years time.

    3. Re:Lawyer up, by techpain · · Score: 1

      But I AM a lawyer! Well, in that case you better lawyer DOWN!

    4. Re:Lawyer up, by nomadic · · Score: 1

      As a lawyer who has worked on class action cases, I always found this generalization hilarious. There are class action cases where individuals receive millions of dollars. I've personally worked on cases where some class members received several hundred thousand dollars, far more than I personally made from the case.

    5. Re:Lawyer up, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this suggesting repeatedly getting modded up? I'm sure they'd love a class action lawsuit, as they are usually resolved for much cheaper than each person's individual liability, with the only real winners being the lawyers that brought the action. Meanwhile, to engage in the class action, you typically have to give up your right to file anything individually on the issue. If you actually want to see your money again, rather than getting pennies on the dollar and feeding the class action lawyers, you'll take them to small claims court yourself.

  33. Fine print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The large print giveth and the small print taketh away. Somewhere in the terms they have a way of getting out of it.

  34. Small Claims Court by redshirt · · Score: 1

    I haven't read the ToS, but if there aren't any disclaimers that allow them to arbitrarily change the terms, small claims court is the place to go. They are essentially not fulfilling the contract, and you can probably get some, if not all, your money back. If enough people do this, it can become a real hassle to the provider.

  35. Class actions by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    This is what class action suits are for. Do you think the executives are taking any cuts or are they paying themselves huge bonuses for how smart they are. This is a classic MBA style move. They might save a few bucks and it looked good on a spread sheet; but now I have labeled Joyent as a waste product in my head. Thus if at some future time I am shopping for a replacement for my present hosting I would just strike Joyent off the list. Before this I had never heard of them. Good PR Job Joyent.

    From my limited legal knowledge where a case like this lay is if the original offer was an accident then they would have some weak ground to stand on. Otherwise this is a simple case of not honoring a contract. The other key is that you paid money. If the offer had been free it would weaken your position. Kraft once printed a boatload of KD packages with a winning minivan. They got most back but still a pile of people "Won" a minivan. They didn't each get a minivan but after a legal tussle they did get something. If the "Winners" had even the slightest bit of legal ground to stand on then you would be solid.
    Their only hope is that the contract says something like, "We reserve the right to screw you if we feel like it." But even then Judges rarely let someone use such a clause to change the overall flavor of a contract as contracts are usually boiled down to you offer something in exchange for something else. If one party does their agreed part then the other party is obliged to do theirs. Wishful thinking or saying, "No more free ride for those guys" doesn't change the reality that existed when the contract was signed. The only probable room for a contract dispute would be as to the definition of lifetime. Your lifetime? The estate's lifetime. The lifetime of your company? And the other possible dispute would be if they declared bankruptcy. How would you fit in as a creditor?
    I suspect that the best they could hope for would be they refund you your money prorated for the "Lifetime" used. So say 60 year lifetime. You signed up 5 years ago. Then they would have to refund 55/60ths of what you paid. But you could argue that this is unexpected and that moving costs so you want more. Messy for them.

    1. Re:Class actions by fnj · · Score: 1

      No, making lawyers rich and giving squat to the aggrieved parties is what Class Actions are for. This is what Small Claims is for.

    2. Re:Class actions by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      It is a question of Justice. Small claims is the best way to get your money back; class action is the best way to get them back.

  36. I don't use the word 'hero' lightly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story.

    wow, there's like some weird Phil Hartman resonance going on with the story submission queue today...

  37. There are no guarantees... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    If a company promises life-time and spell out what they mean by it, then they should be held accountable on the terms defined. Then again in all reality, there is no such thing as a life-time account, just as in life there are no guarantees.

    If you aren't hosting your own service, then be ready to be kicked out when the landlord decides to kick you out, but at the same time they should a) be abiding to the terms of services and b) giving you sufficient time to find an alternative provider. One month is *very* short notice and at the very least they should be giving you six months to make your move.

    I used to be with a company call 'Bigfoot', but they too changed business direction and degraded the quality of their services. At that time I moved to GMail and haven't looked back.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  38. Business as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Unlimited data" means "Whatever caps and limits the corporations wants"
    "Lifetime subscription" means "Whenever the corporations cancels it"
    "Some restrictions apply" means "Anything the corporations want it to mean"
    "Too big to fail" means "Bend over and take it"

    Truth in advertising?

  39. More like Small Claims by pepty · · Score: 1

    Probably win by default. Not only that but he'd actually get his money back this year as opposed to waiting til ~2015 and then have it go to the lawyers.

  40. Class action law suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why they were created, find an attorney to give you a reference to someone who does this. When they settle, lawyers get half, you get 45%, and everyone else splits the rest.

  41. ask for more than that by Chirs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ask for the original amount paid, plus money for your time and hassle setting up a new account and moving everything over to it.

    1. Re:ask for more than that by lurker1997 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This guy paid for something and didn't get it. There is a pretty obvious and quantifiable loss that happened and he should be able to get his money back. This is pretty much the definition of the right kind of thing to sue over. Its not emotional damage or coffee on the crotch or hurting yourself when your robbing someones house or whatever nonsense people get on with. Its a real tort.

    2. Re:ask for more than that by omnichad · · Score: 1

      How is that? It's only really a suit against an actual loss incurred. It's not like a class action where the lawyers get millions, the affected class members get coupons for a free rubber bouncy ball (that expire in a week), and maybe some charity gets some money.

    3. Re:ask for more than that by afidel · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't ask for additional money because you're unlikely to get it and because you did get use of the service for a period of time.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:ask for more than that by fnj · · Score: 1

      Start with a Demand Letter. When that fails ...

      He should sue for triple the amount paid, plus accumulated interest. Plus, as you say, damages - costs incurred to move his content.

      For example in Massachusetts under Small Claims "If a claim falls under Chapter 93A , and involves unfair or deceptive business practices, double or treble (“triple”) damages may be awarded for a total of up to $6,000 ($2,000 x triple damages)."

    5. Re:ask for more than that by raehl · · Score: 0

      Its a real tort.

      Apple? Strawberry?

    6. Re:ask for more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the coffee in the crotch was a real and legitimate suit. http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com looks at the way the media spun that story to give you that impression. In reality that was an elderly woman in the passenger seat of a parked car who was burned so badly by the coffee that she needed skin grafts in her crotch, and McDonalds had a track record of keeping the coffee at super hot levels despite previous incidents of these bad burns. The woman didn't set out to sue, sje just wanted her medical bills covered and for the chain to lower the temperature so that this wouldn't happen to other people and they basically told her to f-off.

      This guy paid for something and didn't get it. There is a pretty obvious and quantifiable loss that happened and he should be able to get his money back. This
      is pretty much the definition of the right kind of thing to sue over. Its not emotional damage or coffee on the crotch or hurting yourself when your robbing someones house or whatever nonsense people get on with. Its a real tort.

    7. Re:ask for more than that by RobinEggs · · Score: 4, Informative

      For the last time...that 'coffee on the crotch' thing people hold up as the prime example of frivolous lawsuits was probably the most justified lawsuit this country has ever seen.

      The woman had fucking third-degree burns throughout her crotch and thighs. A surgeon had to literally rebuild her labia and vagina. Hundreds of people had received second and third degree burns from McDonald's coffee in the years leading up to the suit, including instances when employees spilled the coffee on patrons. McDonald's specifically acknowledged even before that particular incident that the coffee was dangerously hot and unfit for consumption at the time of sale, yet still made a firm and specific corporate policy of setting every coffee maker to that temperature.

      It was categorical, institutional recklessness that severely injured hundreds of people over more than a decade, but when one woman actually sues and wins over this everyone dismisses her as a cash-grabbing crackpot. That's what lawsuits are for; when some entity is fucking people over and won't respond to any other pleading or incentive.

      Half of the 'frivolous' lawsuits out there are completely reasonable and proper grievances that corporations have sneakily re-framed as whiny bullshit. Because how dare the peons think there's an even playing field for them somewhere?! Courts are for corporations to get things done, not the people! Just because some jerk sues Dairy Queen over melted ice cream - and every comedian or 'human interest' journalist in the nation takes a crack at that moron - doesn't mean you can snidely dismiss every individual vs. corporate lawsuit without a second glance.

    8. Re:ask for more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok,

      Seriously? The most Justified lawsuit?

      People bitched that the coffee from takeout gets cold by the time you get to your destination, so they made it hotter to compensate. Then someone burns their vagina. I hate McDonalds, but I can't blame them there. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Do you think that if they had printed "Caution: Hot" like everyone does now, that she wouldn't still have burned her vagina? I think you know she almost certainly would have ignored the warning and put the cup in the same place.

      And also, it's not like you can make coffee THAT hot... it's mostly water, not oil, it'll boil over 100C. 100C is still enough to burn you, but I doubt the coffee was even close to that either.

      And I ask you, where did the store this coffee before it spilled? Between her legs. Even if it was "only" as hot as normal coffee, that's not a bright thing to do.

    9. Re:ask for more than that by MSZ · · Score: 1

      No.

      Did they ever advertise product as "lukewarm coffee"? They havent? In that case, coffee should be expected to be hot. Not warm, HOT. Like, scalding hot...

      And when dealing with hot liquids, caution is necessary. She did not take reasonable caution, therefore it's her fault.

      Hating corporations is a fine pastime, but at least hate them for evils they do, not for stupidity of their customers. Say, Pinto fuel tanks...

      --
      The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
    10. Re:ask for more than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck is wrong with you?

  42. "Lifetime" matchmaker site membership by wcrowe · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't know what to say to the original poster, but I know of a matchmaking site that used to offer a "lifetime" membership. Think about it. How pessimistic are you if you buy a lifetime membership to a matchmaking site?

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:"Lifetime" matchmaker site membership by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Depends on the kind of matchmaking. If you're talking about an Ashley Madison type site, aimed at people who are trying to look for people to cheat on their spouses with, then it does make sense.

    2. Re:"Lifetime" matchmaker site membership by idontgno · · Score: 1

      How pessimistic are you if you buy a lifetime membership to a matchmaking site?

      Two possibilities:

      1. you're this pessimistic
      2. when the website operators decide you've used enough of their service, they'll hook you up with a succession of homicidal stalkers, with a view to putting a definite and spectacular end to your lifetime membership.
      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  43. Looks like you're getting a full refund. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    According to the forums, you should be receiving a full refund. Otherwise, contact the AG's office. You probably have a slam dunk small claims court victory to recover that money.

  44. So that's what they meant by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Who knew the Mayan were really talking about Joyent all along?

    That's a load off my mind anyway.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  45. new owner may need to honour preexisting contracts by Chirs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know how the contract law works in the USA, but I would expect that when one company buys another company any pre-existing contract agreements would still need to be upheld.

  46. Re:Class action / "As long as we exist" = lifetime by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

    RTFS:

    "I've long been a lifetime account holder of an old textdrive (now Joyent) cloud hosting account.

    The original agreement was with Textdrive. It is now with Joyent. This implies that Textdrive no longer exists.

  47. Lifetime of the service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your "Lifetime account" is good for the "lifetime of the service'. Always be a bit skeptical of lifetime deals. Even if they weren't voluntarily closing the service, the same result could have happened if the company went out of business.

  48. I would by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    I would lawyer up and try to warn future customers away from the company as best you could. At least you could probably get a refund (adjusted for inflation, perhaps).

  49. "As long as we exist." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They (textdrive) no longer exist.

    1. Re:"As long as we exist." by teidou · · Score: 1

      Eh. Offer was also made from Joyent.

  50. Sounds like the gym membership problem by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    I've had these experiences with gyum memberships:

    Signed up for guaranteed lifetime rate. Received notice that program was being terminated, and could sign up for limited contrct at different rate. Left for another gym.

    Signed up for lifetime guaranteed rate. Gym sold to another company with new signs put up overnight, new company would not honor membership. I have both left for another gym and negotiated a reasonable rate.

    Signed up for limited contract at guaranteed rate. Gym closed, re-opened under new ownership, new ownership would not honor membership. Mostly left for another gym.

    Signed up for a lifetime guranteed rate, informed my contract was cancelled when the card used for payment expired and gym did not notify me my payments were not being made. Required to pay past due balance with penalties, resign for new higher rate. Ignored new rate, paid past due and refused penalties, left for another gym.

    Most recently, signed up for lifetime guaranteed rate, suspended membership, notified that it was cancelled for non use. Required to resign with initiaition fee, higher rate, different terms. Refused, kept original contract and pointed to the paragraph where it was lifetime, no disclaimer for non use. Contract reinstated with dirty looks from the manager for a year until he got an offer he could not refuse.

    I doubt you'll get satisfaction, but they have several ways to legally avoid this. I would try to negotiate something like a minimal yearly fee, and when they offer a contract, ask them how this one is any more binding than the last one... And it is highly likely that they are doing this because they are losing money on those lifetime deals. The worst-case resolution is for them to go out of business, and leave you with not even your old data.

    Sucks to be a realist.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:Sounds like the gym membership problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Signed up for guaranteed lifetime rate...

      Signed up for lifetime guaranteed rate...

      Signed up for limited contract at guaranteed rate...

      Signed up for a lifetime guranteed rate...

      Most recently, signed up for lifetime guaranteed rate...

      Sucks to not learn from your mistakes.

    2. Re:Sounds like the gym membership problem by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I learned.

      I learned that gym memberships are not guaranteed.

      I learned that which gym I use is not so important.

      I learned that sometimes you can negotiate.

      I learned that sometimes you have to be difficult to get your way.

      I already know that ACs are sometimes self-important dicks.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    3. Re:Sounds like the gym membership problem by Teun · · Score: 1

      I knew all this physical exercise causes dumbing down.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    4. Re:Sounds like the gym membership problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you have a learning disability... ;-)

  51. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not legal advice. But if the company advertised lifetime service then reneged, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company is still good law, and probably applies.

  52. Contact Your attourney General by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

    Your State's Attorney General has the power to prosecute the company, get in contact with them, and the BBB. Essentially they are stealing $500 from you, the AG office may advise you to file a claim in Small Claims court. Don't worry about the arbitrator clause because they voided the contract the second they broke the terms by discontinuing the service so you are no longer bound to the contract.

    --
    Knowledge = Power
    P= W/t
    t=Money
    Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
  53. Re:new owner may need to honour preexisting contra by WRX+SKy · · Score: 2

    They do over here too, except this particular offer explicitly defined lifetime as "as long as we exist". Therefore that becomes part of the contract terms.

  54. Moving to the cloud... by ygthb · · Score: 1

    ... is it really a good idea?

    Just sayin..

    --
    Create like a god, command like a king, work like a slave. -Guy Kawasaki
  55. Update by teidou · · Score: 5, Informative

    They are now offering a refund or 5 years of hosting. I'll probably take it and move on.

    1. Re:Update by fnj · · Score: 2

      Don't take the refund unless they give you the investment plus a fair rate of interest over the intervening years. Time value of money. Even that is still doing them a favor considering the future years they have stolen from you, but I suppose it's better than a kosh on the head in a dark alley.

    2. Re:Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Update by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      They are now offering a refund or 5 years of hosting.

      I'll probably take it and move on.

      Are you serious? If they're really going for an IPO, as an early investor, you should get in on that.

    4. Re:Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, how low, they deleted the post!

    5. Re:Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did get hosting all these years, so it'd consider that equal to the interest.

  56. Skepticism Pays Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember vividly the day I read the offer and noted the "as long as we exist" line. I thought... "I doubt that will be very long offering a deal like this!" and took a pass. It's somewhat smugly gratifying to see my skepticism pay off... sort of.

  57. Re:Recourse? probably not by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's not uncommon for this to happen and apparently, it's legal.

    A fitness centre near here sold "lifetime memberships" and after 5 years, cancelled them. They duly got taken to court and the judge ruled in favour of the fitness centre. You might possibly be able to argue that if the supplier had known at the time of selling these "lifetime" products that they would withdraw them after a short time, there was a fraud, or mis-seling, or false advertising - but it would be difficult to prove and probably not the case, anyway.

    This is just another phrase that changes its meaning where money and profit are involved. Just like "unlimited" (broadband), "free speech" and "our customers are important to us".

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  58. Lawyers might be allowed in small claims court by pem · · Score: 1

    depends on the state

    1. Re:Lawyers might be allowed in small claims court by FrankSchwab · · Score: 1

      Who do you think is going to show up to represent the company? The janitor? The CEO?

      No, it'll be a lawyer. They may not have a title that screams "attorney", but that'll be in their background.

      /frank

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
  59. What an Awful Company Name by bacon.frankfurter · · Score: 1

    "Joyent"

    I mean really. It makes my mind wretch. It's like some kind of INGSOC Newspeak name, for a happy happy joy joy Enterprise Computing corporation. Very "Doublethink". You know, like "Minipax", " Miniplenty", "Minitrue", "Miniluv"... Looks like Joyent's private Thinkpol threw your Time Live contract down a Memory Hole.

  60. Lawyers might be allowed in small claims court by pem · · Score: 2
    Depends on the state whether lawyers are allowed in small claims court or not.

    For example, in Texas they are definitely allowed, though not required.

  61. Paying for a cloud service is a bad idea by nomad63 · · Score: 2

    I am sure I will get a lot of flack just because how my subject line reads, but, looking at the track record of oline services, it is never a good idea to buy into any kind of cloud/web service, by paying your hard earned cash. I have been bitten by the now-defunct sunrocket.com VoIP service, which was supposed to cost me $200 for 2 years and after my 7th month they went belly up with no recourse for me to recoup my money. So I paid $200 for 7 months of VoIP service at the time. And there were much cheaper alternatives available when I got into this situation. The original poster is in a better position than I was, because he has an entity to sue and get some of their money back. How much is a question to be answered by small claims courts of California, but still, it is better than nothing. And this is exactly the reason why I refuse to pay for any service which is running on the goodwill of a person or few people, residing on the cloud. It is very easy for these outfits to disband themselves and ride into sunset with your money. $10 per year for a simple service may not be much but in principle, if I am making a contract to earn that money, I want to see the same from any service provider, to whom I will hand out any tangible object to acquire their service. And last but not the least, some half-baked, hare-brained ideas of 20-something year olds without much business understanding (which this particular case definitely sounded like one) is never a good idea to buy into, at any capacity, paid or not. I will be happy to give some of my screen real estate to ads, if the service is good enough to warrant some use from me. At least, when they disappear, I don't have to deal with financial losses. And to the original poster : What were you thinking when you aere shelling ot half a grand from your already non-existent funds, to sign up for such an ephemeral service ? Really, I don't see the value in the premise. I mean 2 months after they take your $500, they could have disappeared and you could have nothing to show for that loss. And I love the TechCrunch'es take "It's not about the money". To the people who did not lose money on a deal, it is never about the money. But for people like me, regardless how much money I make, I am pissed off if someone walks away with my $500 or even much less. And yes it *IS* about the money. Things like this, make my blood boil. Thanks for reading my rant, if you lasted this long.

    --

    __________
    The more I know people, the more I love animals
    1. Re:Paying for a cloud service is a bad idea by admdrew · · Score: 1

      You should likely just get flack for that an egregious lack of paragraph breaks.
      PS - tl;dr.

    2. Re:Paying for a cloud service is a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like the "gym membership" scammers have moved on, into "the cloud"...

    3. Re:Paying for a cloud service is a bad idea by n7ytd · · Score: 1

      I was also a sunrocket customer, but I was about 18 months into my "buy one year at $199, get the second year free" agreement when they went under. I figured it was the way of the world and didn't feel too badly about the price I had paid for the value received and moved on.

      My friend was in a similar situation as yourself; only a few months into his contract. When the company went bankrupt, he contacted his credit card company about the problem. They issued him a complete refund of the $199.

      Looking back, it was sheer madness on my part to pony up $199 upfront for a company with no long-term reputation like sunrocket. Also a lesson learned: let the credit card company take the risk, not me.

      Let's not open up the can of worms that is the shifty circumstances in which Teleblend "acquired" all assets and customers of sunrocket...

  62. Company will have to change name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because many folks google, bbb, etc ... before doing business with businesses. When they google joylent they'll see what their word is worth.

  63. Abritration may be your friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they sold you a service, then they are obligated to provide it.
          I wonder if you could sue for specific performance,
                or if the terms force you to arbitrate instead.

    If the terms in their agreement are clear, and after a good faith effort, you can't get them to explain why they are no longer obligated,
        then you might have a rare case where the company's arbitrator is on your side.

    If so, then you might end up with the service you paid for as long as the company, or whoever buys it is still around.
          Perhaps you would only have to convince them that you have a good case, are persistent, and have a viable way to force them to do what you want.

    You would probably have to gather up all the agreements and e-mails and buy a hour of a lawyers time to figure out what you can do.
            If this is worth it depends on what you think the lifetime service is worth to you.
                      They are betting that you either won't follow through, or will just decide it's not worth the trouble.

  64. Small claims court. by bmo · · Score: 1

    "I've long been a lifetime account holder of an old textdrive (now Joyent) cloud hosting account. I remember purchasing the account back in college for a few hundred bucks when I really didn't have the money to spend. *SNIP* For reference, this was the original offer. In it, they state: 'How long is it good for? As long as we exist.'"

    If that's indeed what the contract stated, then walk into small claims court and ask that your money be refunded because they violated the terms of their own contract. No, you don't need a lawyer. Just a copy of the contract and what they said. Learn how to use the wayback machine to show historical statements that it's "for as long as we exist." It shouldn't take longer than an hour to gather this info up. Then it's to small claims, where you represent yourself, and they're not allowed to send a lawyer if they send anyone at all.

    The only other question to ask is "how much is my time worth?" - to follow through or to just say "fuckit" and consider it a lesson in consumer science.

    Someone mentioned class action. You'll get nothing in a class action. At best you'll get a coupon for further services that you don't want since you are now a former customer.

    --
    BMO

  65. with friends like these... by grimshaw · · Score: 1

    I heard a comment recently where a BBC reporter was talking about a particular American industry and he used the phrase "the US privatizes profits but socializes losses." I've been thinking about that.

    Had this lifetime service disappeared because they went out of business, we would have all said, oh well. It's sad it didn't work out and would lament the loss and move on. But, they didn't. They decided it wasn't "profitable." Well, it isn't profitable for the consumer to invest and lose, but we accepted those risks. So, like the BBC mentioned, the losses are everyone else's problem and the business wins (while the consumer loses).

    I completely disagree with an earlier comment that people got their money's worth math BS of multiplying the monthly rate to date. These users took a risk and fronted the company payments years ahead of the monthly service cost with no guarantee it would be in business that long. Now they tell them thanks for funding our business and you get nothing. This is a broken social contract and that makes them unethical wankers. They certainly couldn't do this with company stock.

    I make it a point to not do business with wankers. I put them on the list.

  66. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  67. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  68. check carefully by sjames · · Score: 1

    It looks like at most you can sue in small claims court for $250 (you agreed to arbitration for disputes beyond that amount). They will probably be a no-show granting you the judgement. They may or may not pay up on it. If your time is worth anything, you probably won't come out ahead.

    1. Re:check carefully by admdrew · · Score: 1

      http://discuss.joyent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=241234#p241234

      For those affected, they're now (as of today) offering 5 free years of continued service, or a refund on the original purchase.

    2. Re:check carefully by sjames · · Score: 1

      That seems fair enough.

  69. Re:Recourse? probably not by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >>>The judge ruled in favour of the fitness centre.

    If you would like to speak to the judge, you can find him at the fitness center every Friday night, using his free gold pass.

    This seems like a scam to me. The reason you pay the outrageously high "life" prices of ~$1000 is because over the longterm (say: 15 years) it's cheaper than the annual rate (~$100). It's a bargain plus your loyalty is being rewarded.

    For companies to discontinue the membership means they actually charged MORE per year than the annual rate. If I did that I'd be called a scam artist like Mr. Charles Ponzi, but if corporations do it then it's somehow okay.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  70. Full TOS by RandomUsername99 · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is the full ToS from TextDrive from when this offer was available:

    TextDrive Terms of Service

    The following terms and conditions (these “Terms”) govern the provision by TEXTDRIVE, INC. (“Company”) of the services and/or products (referred collectively herein as “Services and Products”) described on the Server Order Form, the Service Level Agreement and Service Exhibit attached hereto (collectively the “Service Descriptions”) and defined in any of the Company’s product support listing, to the customer (“Customer”) identified on the Service Descriptions. The Service Descriptions, these Terms and the attachments and any addenda hereto, executed with respect to the Services and Products, are referred to herein, collectively, as this “Agreement.”

    Our Hosting Services
    Maximum Hard Disk Space. Customer will be provided with the amount of disk space stated in either their dedicated quote or corresponding plan from http://textdrive.com/plans/. Disk space and usage are monitored by TextDrive, Inc., when possible quotas are soft and responsible overages should not impair Customer’s ability to access said disk space. Customers are responsible for purchasing additional disk space beyond that detailed in their “Plan” or to remove files in order to bring their usage with their Plans’s limit.
    Jurisdiction and Jurisdictional Disputes. TextDrive Inc is a California corporation. The parties recognize that TextDrive, Inc is under the legal jurisdiction of the State of California, and US federal law. The parties expressly recognize that, where TextDrive, Inc. is acting solely as Customer’s Host, TextDrive, Inc. is not engaged in, and is not actively soliciting, interstate or international commerce for said Customer. Where TextDrive, Inc. is a named party to any type of dispute or litigation involving any acts by Customer that affect out-of-state persons or entities, Customer agrees that it shall indemnify, hold TextDrive Inc. harmless, defend TextDrive, Inc. and challenge the jurisdiction of out of state authorities over TextDrive, Inc.
    Storage, Backups and Internet Link. TextDrive Inc. shall store Customer’s Web Sites and Email messages on TextDrive Inc’s servers. The parties expressly recognize that Internet servers and links are susceptible to crashes and down time. TextDrive, Inc. warrants that it shall maintain a consistent link with the Internet, but TextDrive, Inc. cannot and does not warrant that it shall maintain a continuous and uninterrupted link. However, TextDrive, Inc does pass through the following Service Level Agreement from it’s Managed Hosting Provider (NextLevel Internet, Inc. of San Diego, California) and that is 100% Power Uptime and 100% Network Uptime. TextDrive Inc. does monitor all services on our servers at minimum of 5-minute intervals.
    Bandwidth. TextDrive, Inc agrees that it shall maintain a 100Mbps connection to each server, however, TextDrive, Inc. does not warrant any response rate or download time beyond it’s control, as this is depending on Customer’s and End Users ISP connections.
    Maintenance. TextDrive Inc. may, at its own discretion, temporarily suspend all service for the purpose of repair, maintenance or improvement of any of its systems. However, TextDrive, Inc. shall provide prior notice where it is reasonably practicable under the circumstances, and shall restore service as soon as is reasonably practicable. Customer shall not be entitled to any setoff, discount, refund or other credit, in case of any service outage which is beyond TextDrive Inc’s control or which is reasonable in duration.
    Security. The parties expressly recognize that it is impossible to maintain flawless security, but TextDrive, Inc. shall take reasonable steps to prevent security breaches in server interactions with Customer and security breaches in TextDrive Inc’s server interaction with resource

  71. Re:Recourse Steam by Drafell · · Score: 4, Informative

    Except Steam have already made it publicly known that they have a procedure in place to ensure you don't lose access to games in the event that they have to close doors.

  72. Re:new owner may need to honour preexisting contra by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

    It's not uncommon for companies to buy less than a whole company to avoid lines of business they are not interested in.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
  73. Small Claims Court by Dunega · · Score: 1

    Take them to small claims court, get your few hundred bucks back and move on.

  74. Happens with lifetime software upgrades, too by ccguy · · Score: 1

    Famatech did the same crap with radmin. They forced all their old customers (who had bought 1.x which promised lifetime upgrades) to withdraw their right to their lifetime upgrades in order to get one final "free" upgrade to 2.x.
    Of course nothing happened, we like to bitch a lot but we hardly ever take action.

  75. Re:new owner may need to honour preexisting contra by kwerle · · Score: 1

    I'd still try to get money back. Joyent continued to support the service for some time with no comment - the implication being that they would continue to do so.

    Personally, I'd try to figure out a reasonable value for the service you received and just aim for the remainder...

  76. Re:Recourse? probably not by countach74 · · Score: 1

    Good point... and even better: your signature.

  77. This happened to me by SavSoul · · Score: 2

    I was involved in a similar situation where I had free rentals for life with a purchase of a VCR. They had a pitiful movie selection but it was still a good deal. Eventually, they decided to drop the rental portion of the business and effectively said too bad. A quick lawsuit later I had my full purchase price back in my hands. Not a lawyer but it was about 2 hour total to file in small claims and prove my membership and lifetime certificate.

  78. Not free use. Discounted. by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

    It's not "free" to the person who paid.

    Now the company, always hungry for that quarterly number sees it as "free" because they aren't getting anything now.

    That is the cost of undervaluing service to buy market share and those costs need to be carefully considered, or things like this happen.

  79. TOS Wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if this part of the TOS allows them to pull this service without liable

    "Limitation on Company Liability. Company shall not be deemed to be in default of any provision of this Agreement or be liable for any failure of performance of the Services and Products to Customer resulting, directly or indirectly, from any (i) weather conditions, natural disasters or other acts of God, (ii) action of any governmental or military authority, (iii) failure caused by telecommunication or other Internet provider, or (iv) other force or occurrence beyond its control. The exclusive remedy against Company for any damages whatsoever to Customer arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be the refund of the fees paid by Customer to Company with respect to the then current term of this Agreement. COMPANY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR (i) ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, OR FOR ANY LOSS OF PROFITS OR LOSS OF REVENUE RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THE COMPANY’S SERVICES AND PRODUCTS BY CUSTOMER OR ANY THIRD PARTIES, OR (ii) ANY LOSS OF DATA RESULTING FROM DELAYS, NONDELIVERIES, MISDELIVERIES OR SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS COMPANY PROVIDES THE SERVICES AND PRODUCTS AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED COMPANY DISCLAIMS ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE CUSTOMER SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SELECTION, USE AND SUITABILITY OF THE SERVICES AND PRODUCTS AND COMPANY SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY THEREFORE."

    1. Re:TOS Wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if this part of the TOS allows them to pull this service without liable

      Not without giving a refund.

      "Limitation on Company Liability. Company shall not be deemed to be in default of any provision of this Agreement or be liable for any failure of performance of the Services and Products to Customer resulting, directly or indirectly, from any

      Their decision to renege on the lifetime contract was not caused by...

      (i) weather conditions, natural disasters or other acts of God,

      So this clause doesn't give them an 'out'.

      (ii) action of any governmental or military authority,

      So this clause doesn't give them an 'out'.

      (iii) failure caused by telecommunication or other Internet provider, or

      So this clause doesn't give them an 'out'.

      (iv) other force or occurrence beyond its control.

      So this clause doesn't give them an 'out'.

      The exclusive remedy against Company for any damages whatsoever to Customer arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be the refund of the fees paid by Customer to Company with respect to the then current term of this Agreement.

      Here's the call for a refund, which, as you can see, is *not* a prorated refund!
      So, how about the rest of the disclaimer? (You know, the ALL CAPS section.)

      COMPANY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR

      (i) ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, OR FOR ANY LOSS OF PROFITS OR LOSS OF REVENUE RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THE COMPANY’S SERVICES AND PRODUCTS BY CUSTOMER OR ANY THIRD PARTIES, OR

      No damages (of any type) at issue here are "resulting from the use of the company's services and products by customer or any third parties, so no disclaimer of liability here.

      (ii) ANY LOSS OF DATA RESULTING FROM DELAYS, NONDELIVERIES, MISDELIVERIES OR SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS COMPANY PROVIDES THE SERVICES AND PRODUCTS AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED COMPANY DISCLAIMS ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE CUSTOMER SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SELECTION, USE AND SUITABILITY OF THE SERVICES AND PRODUCTS AND COMPANY SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY THEREFORE."

      No loss of data, so no disclaimer of liability here.

      Looks like that section has absolutely no bearing on the situation as it is unfolding.

  80. And you still believe in promises from companies? by cpotoso · · Score: 1

    It has been 100% clear that the only promises that hold are those in which both parties have an permanent interest, i.e., you need a service and they want your money... not once, but continuously, like in every month. Ceasing their incentive to offer the service any company will find a way to get out of the deal no matter what has been promised. Simple enough? Sure you can sue, and probably will get your $$. Most people won't bother. Damage to their reputation?? Who the heck remembers what joyent is never mind who will remember in 2 months? Got it yet?

  81. Re:Recourse Steam by Jiro · · Score: 3, Informative

    Bankruptcy lets a company renege on its obligations. If the company goes bankrupt, the bankruptcy court gets to decide whether the company has to make good on the "promise" that you can keep accessing your games. They may very well decide that the company should pay all its money to creditors and not use any money to pay for programmers, servers, or customer service people to give you access to your games. They might decide that the company should do it anyway to avoid losing intangible goodwill value, but they by no means have to.

  82. Yes you can in the US - exception real estate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure you can. It's done all the time.

    The only time where it is (mostly) NOT the case is buying land because there are liens against it and also any environmental liabilities are also attached to the land.

  83. Joylent (green) is no long made of people? ...sorry, couldn't resist

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
  84. It's not like this has never happened by Kagato · · Score: 1

    A good example of "Lifetime" agreements can be found with airlines. Delta Airlines has acquired several competitors over the years, almost all of them had a small subset of lifetime Lounge/Club memberships.

    For Northwest airlines, which was a merger, the lifetime memberships were honored, and continue to be honored.

    For TWA, Delta acquired specific TWA assets in bankruptcy court. Because Delta was one of many buyers of assets they did not assume the liability of the lifetime agreements. TWA folks were SOL.

    So, in general, unless they have done something to distance themselves from the liability of the Lifetime memberships I just don't see them getting out of the obligation.

    1. Re:It's not like this has never happened by thesameguy · · Score: 1

      But as you demonstrated there are numerous ways for Company A to acquire Company B, in part or in whole. Without knowledge of the textdrive->Joyent acquisition, we can't even guess as to what obligations might have been passed along. Assuming even *one* lawyer sat at the table, I think it's safe to say Joyent didn't end up committing to servicing contracts that would be unprofitable in the long term. Regardless, if the User/textdrive agreement was "lifetime as long as we/textdrive exist" and Joyent no longer employs the textdrive name/trademark/corporate structure, it is highly unlikely they would be obligated to service that agreement. Purchase of the textdrive infrastructure and customer base would not constitute the continued existence of textdrive by any measure I am aware of.

    2. Re:It's not like this has never happened by mattack2 · · Score: 2

      Interesting article about this that I saw mentioned the other day (the article was written in May).

      http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/05/business/la-fi-0506-golden-ticket-20120506

    3. Re:It's not like this has never happened by Kagato · · Score: 1

      Nothing is clear about this. When there is an acquisition there are assets and liabilities. You can't just transfer the assets to another company and then walk away from the liabilities. Without assets the TextDrive shell would have been required to go straight into bankruptcy court. And BK courts take a rather dim view of trying to get out of paying bills by playing a shell game with the assets. What we can say for sure is that kind of drama didn't seem to happen.

      Given the acquisition was in 2005 and they were supporting the lifetime folks until recently, I would say that's a pretty good argument can be made that Joyent assumed the liability of the lifetime customers. I would speculate they may be taking a calculated risk that that there aren't enough people to warrant a class action and the worst case they'll cut some checks with a NDA. The problem will quietly go away.

      I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice.

    4. Re:It's not like this has never happened by Havenwar · · Score: 1

      Seems to me your arguing doesn't quite make sense.

      1. This guy has a contract.

      That's it really. No more points needed. If joyent bought that contract as part of their acquisitions, then they also bought the liability for it. You can't buy a contract without accepting that you have to live by it, that's sort of the whole point of a contract. Now the argument in court will be about whether or not the company he bought the contract with still exists. Unless it went bankrupt the answer should be yes - when you buy a company it merges with you, it doesn't disappear, it becomes part of a larger whole. Nothing I can find mentions anything about bankruptcy, so... see point 1. This guy has a contract. If the company no longer wishes to honour that, they are breaking the contract and he should have the right to a refund.

      I'd start my claim at the original price adjusted for inflation, and allow them to barter me down to the original price. I wouldn't accept anything in the way of services from them, because I would never again do business with them. I am not in the habit of rewarding companies that pull shit like this.

    5. Re:It's not like this has never happened by thesameguy · · Score: 1

      > You can't just transfer the assets to another company and then walk away from the liabilities. Of course it's not quite that simple, but in essence you can in fact do just that. Joyent could absolutely buy all of textdrive's "stuff" without buying textdrive itself. As long as the price paid was reasonable, nothing about that sale would be fraudulent. textdrive would be then left incapable of servicing its customers, but assuming all of their other bills are paid off, who is going to be the one to push them into bankruptcy? If you are totally insolvent but nobody comes asking for anything, there is no requirement for a BK. The only people who could have pushed textdrive into BK would be its customers, but maybe Joyent, in good will, offers to continue to service textdrive customers. They haven't assumed any contracts or obligations, they are just giving free stuff away. And now they aren't doing it anymore. If you're angry, you can certainly go file a lawsuit against textdrive, but you have no claim against Joyent. I am not saying this is what happened, but this is a mechanism by which is could have happened. I have been on both sides of these types of acquisitions, and it's pretty standard. My experience is with CLECs, but I feel safe in saying the concepts there would apply here as well. But, as you said, I'm not a lawyer either.

    6. Re:It's not like this has never happened by profplump · · Score: 1

      But at some point in this process the actual obligations held by textdrive would be subject to settlement as part of bankruptcy/dissolution, and as creditors for who the textdrive has valid contact information the contract holders would need to be notified of those proceedings to make their claims. They might not get any money out of it, but they'd at least get notice of the default.

  85. Reading the posts over there. by Worf+Maugg · · Score: 1

    Jason reminds me of Derek Smart.

  86. Change the name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should at least change their name to "Joyend".

  87. So sue them for specific performance. by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    You do still have your copy of the contract, right? What does it actually say?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  88. Joyent has been trying to ditch it for awhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not surprising. I am one of the original VC200 and was privy to a great deal of information. Joyent has been trying to get out of that lifetime commitment ever since they purchased TextDrive (which should come as no surprise to those few of us left in their shared-hosting ghetto.)

    I do think it's funny that they're finally making good on that t-shirt, though.

  89. But by dittbub · · Score: 1

    What if their only other choice is not existing anymore?

  90. golly make a backup by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    Golly make a backup.
    Ask folk at what was Danger.
    Anytime something changes hands stuff falls on the ground.

    The problem with the cloud is a backup takes time and bandwidth in addition to capacity.
    When something breaks or changes all the users have the same problem slowing things a lot.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  91. Joylent - put 20,000 users on a single 256MB VM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see the issue. Joylent should just put 20,000 lifetime shell users on a single 256MB virtual machine with extremely limited storage. Over time, they should slowly reduce the amount of CPU and storage available per use until only inactive accounts remain. Put in a clause about inactive accounts being removed - bam, problem solved.

    I say this as a Lifetime TiVo S2 owner. The tivo device worked the last time I booted it a few months ago, but my cable provider has completely screwed me making it worthless due to the migration to digital cable. The S2 doesn't do ATSC or digital cable. Sure, I could hook it up to a low-def converter and use an IR blaster to change channels, but I'm more likely to get a network cableCard tuner. I already have a HDHR network dual tuner working with linux and 7MC.

    This weekend, I'm cancelling all CATV and switching to the 61 OTA/ATSC TV channels locally available here. Even though 30 of those are ultra religious or radio stations, the remaining stations do have movies and education and networks. I had to build a db4/m4 antenna to get from 19 stations with poor reception to 61 and had to put the antenna in the attic to get the last 30 stations. It is amazing what 8 ft of height does for HDTV reception.

    I'm also a "lifetime" DynDNS customer. I made a donation about 10-15 yrs ago and have been using their service all this time. I've purchased a few other services from time to time from Dyn, but their other offerings are for experts, not noobs. You can buy email port forward services for inbound and/or outbound - they are separate services. It would have been nice if they sold a bundle last year when I needed it. When they stop the subdomain DNS service, all my friends who I've setup will get a subdomain from my DNS domain. That is easy enough to do.

    There are lots of companies who either had free or really cheap initial offerings. I've considered that for my company too. The key is to get enough users who can be converted into paying customers that actually lead to a profit. Customers that cause losses aren't good. Ask Sunrocket and Oooma about this. Vonage is still in business because they priced their offering right - they made a profit and still make profits. Hiugh quality wholesale VoIP service can be had for $5/month - again, this is for experts, not average people. I pay by the minute for every outbound call - it is always less than $0.50/month. We don't watch the time at all. Even if the phone were used 20 hrs a day, we'd come out cheaper every month than Vonage charges. The extra costs for Vonage - like roaming SIP access is just knowing how to setup a SIP client on your laptop or smartphone or other device. No extra costs. Each inbound phone line is $2 extra - $2, not $2 per month. Vonage customers are paying for the handholding, not the technology. BTW, Vonage has a $10/month plan these days.

    Joylent just needs to encourage freeloaders to switch away. Definitely the people should ask for a refund if that was in the terms.

    1. Re:Joylent - put 20,000 users on a single 256MB VM by McKing · · Score: 1

      But we are not freeloaders, we are people who have paid (A LOT, at the time) for a service and we expect Joyent to continue to uphold the spirit of that agreement. The 3 domains that I host on my server at Joyent are a personal website that hasn't been updated in years, my band's website, and a website for a friend of mine where he can upload his music for people to listen to. All in all I get a few hundred page views a month. Are you telling me that my little sites are really costing Joyent enough money to justify the bad PR that this will earn them? We were the early adopters and the "investors" in Textdrive. Textdrive might not have existed if it weren't for the $500 chunks of money that they got at just the right time back in 2005 and 2006, so where is the reciprocity???

      --
      If only "common" sense was actually that common...
  92. What if someone offers a transition path? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many people would be prepared to move their textdrive account to another provider if they would continue the same service?

  93. Re:Class action / "As long as we exist" = lifetime by admdrew · · Score: 1
    Yes, RTFS. The last link in TFS clearly shows Joyent existed at that time:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20060203030930/http://www.textdrive.com/mixedgrill

    "TextDrive, Strongspace and Joyent

    One-time payment of $499

    We're pleased to announce a special offer that combines three great products in our family â" TextDrive, Strongspace and Joyent â" available for a one-time payment of just $499. "

  94. Re:Recourse? probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many companies take your money to finance themselves today and hope another customer comes in tomorrow to give them the money to supply you with what you've 'purchased'. Ever since I opened a regulated travel business (Ontario, Canada) I've thought that this should be made illegal for all businesses.

  95. Re:Recourse? probably not by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Never buy lifetime memberships. They are scams -- where do they get the money to keep business ging several years down the road? They haven't invested the money, I assure you. They have spent it.

    The business model is to take your money, party rock hard, then go out of business. This was the fraudulent business model of many fitness clubs when they exploded in popularity in the late 70s thru early 80s.

    When I see new MMORPGs with monthly pay-to-play offering "lifetime pass" options, I run for the hills, even as suckers sign up, fancying themselves getting a deal.

    That just says to me they realize they have a lemon on the way.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  96. Re:Class action / "As long as we exist" = lifetime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your argument has been refuted many times over in the comments by now. RTFC

  97. The Operative Word Is "Cloud" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You bought into the "Cloud". Honestly, what did you expect?

  98. gullible by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Why would anyone believe a corporation will be around for their entire lifetime?

    This is like those Ginsu knives they sold with the "50 year warranty". The company was sold and sold again and the name sold a third time. Does anyone believe they're going to honor those warranties?

    There is zero reason to believe any warranty, guarantee, etc from any corporation. There are a thousand ways they can screw you over.

    Now, you might get lucky with a 1 year replacement warranty, and if so, I'm glad, but nobody should pretend it's anything like a gamble. We already know from economics 101 that a corporations single responsibility is to increase value for shareholders. That's an admission that they'll only look out for you as long as it doesn't cost them anything.

    I see that the advertisements for Progressive Auto Insurance say that they'll look out for their customers. There's a case that's being discussed all over the Internet where a lady who bought Progressive car insurance got killed by another driver and Progressive represented the killer in court to try to get out of having to pay out on the insurance policy.

    And you're upset because some dot.bomb company isn't going to honor their "lifetime account". You should feel lucky it lasted this long.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  99. Let it go by KalvinB · · Score: 0

    The ad was for as long as "they" exist. "They" don't exist anymore. Obviously the new company didn't buy your contracts so they're done holding up their end of the bargain.

    6 years of service for $500 is pretty reasonable. About $6.95 a month which is comparable to GoDaddy.

    The cost and hassle of trying to sue them is not worth it and really just silly.

    Just because you blew money you didn't really have doesn't make the contract any different than it is. You made a bet that they'd exist for Y years and they lasted 6. Not surprising. It costs money to run a business and it was approaching "not worth it" on their lifetime product.

    1. Re:Let it go by McKing · · Score: 1

      But they chose to continue to honor the Mixed Grill offer when they morphed from TextDrive to Joyent. Not knowing what went on in the board room during the TextDrive->Joyent migration, I really couldn't say that "they" don't exist any more, but it seems to me that they do. They even worked a deal with the group that bought the rights to their Strongspace technology to continue the lifetime Strongspace plans after that part of the company had been spun off. So far they have been very accepting of their Mixed Grill users. To me this shows intent to honor the agreements.

      --
      If only "common" sense was actually that common...
  100. Re:Recourse? probably not by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    The people with Tivo lifetime memberships brag about their financial prowess every chance they get.

  101. Re:Recourse Steam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except Steam have already made it publicly known that they have a procedure in place to ensure you don't lose access to games in the event that they have to close doors.

    Yeah, and that's as legally valid as the commitment Joyent's users had about "lifetime" accounts. Even without bankruptchy, which, as another poster pointed out, means it's not Steam's commitment to make, it's the debtor-in-posession's commitment. You think servers just stay up forever of their own accord?

  102. Re:Recourse? probably not by mattack2 · · Score: 1

    Never buy lifetime memberships. They are scams -- where do they get the money to keep business ging several years down the road?

    They get the money from the people who are paying monthly/yearly, who either haven't done the calculation to figure out that the lifetime makes more sense, or simply choose not to get the lifetime membership. (Maybe it's to only one specific one, and they may move, or something.)

    Heck, even if the company does go out of business, the "lifetime" membership could be worth it to the user, still being amortized over the amount of time they were able to use it.

    I always get lifetime subscriptions on TiVos, even though it's for the lifetime of the device.. (and I do have one that died, though I now have another for parts to hopefully revive it.. it's not a hard drive issue, the usual easily-fixed issue).

  103. Re:new owner may need to honour preexisting contra by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Implications are not legally binding.

  104. Re:new owner may need to honour preexisting contra by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    Unless only the assets of a company are sold in a Chapter 7/11 proceeding, the purchasing company purchases all liabilities of the company bought.

    This would be a clear breach of agreement by the new owners.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  105. Re:Recourse? probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on! CORPorations are more important than people, life and liberty. Anything else is not profitable! You must work, for electronic and quantum money.

  106. Rule Against Perpetuities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the OP sues he will lose. Perpetuities are not allowed by virtually all common law jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions do not allow lifetime contracts under Consumer Protection legislation. And yup I'm a lawyer.

  107. Re:Recourse? probably not by mapsjanhere · · Score: 2

    Well, in case of going out of business, or shutting down an MMO, the "as long as we exist" clause would kick in. This is a case of the CEO admitting "we would have to upgrade the hardware providing the service, and we don't want to do that". Some lawyers will make a lot of money of it, and the victims will get a $10 off coupon.

    --
    I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
  108. Re:Recourse? probably not by PRMan · · Score: 2

    I bought a lifetime TiVo DVR service about 12 years ago and DirecTV STILL honors it on their DirecTV-branded DVRs. If you can see that the lifetime is cheaper than about 2 years worth of service, I'd say it's worth the risk. As it goes, I paid $250 to save $10/month for 12 years.

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  109. Re:new owner may need to honour preexisting contra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True, but they can't buy existing customers without also accepting the liability for their contracts. I.e. this guy still has a claim, joyent bought his contract, no matter what else they bought they accepted that they'd uphold it. They decided to pull the plug, so he should decide to be refunded.

  110. Re:Recourse? probably not by Teancum · · Score: 1

    It also depends on the fine points of the contract. If a clause limiting the terms of the "lifetime membership" was in that contract, the case that five years is sufficient might have been even a correct ruling, assuming that reading such a contract was implied and other kinds of fraud such as employees promising things that weren't in the written contract also did not occur.

    It also seems very unlikely that this particular judge set any sort of common law precedence that would apply to the Joyent situation, unless you can show it happened in California and was upheld by a court of appeals or the California state Supreme Court (which in the original contract was the jurisdiction for contract disputes for this particular contract for cloud services).

  111. Re:They are a company by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Wrong. If a company does not provide the goods or services that they sold you, in this case, a lifetime account, that's illegal in the US.

    Can someone please tell that to John Corzine? And Barack Obama?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  112. Depends by phorm · · Score: 1

    If the site costs $30/month, and a "lifetime" membership is $100.
    You might expect to take at least a year to find somebody, so in that respect $100 isn't all that pessimistic.

  113. Try contacting state attourneys general by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

    if you're in the US. A few years ago when Paypal stole $1200 from us our case was thrown out of small claims court, essentially because the judge didn't want to hassle with it. He argued that the small print in the Paypal user agreement means they can just take your money for no reason and you have no recourse. Two state Attorney's general helped us though. All it took was one inquiry from Ohio and Paypal gave us our money back, no explanation. Washington later followed up with us just to make sure everything was squared away. I don't think we had even contacted them, they had found out about our case somehow and were doing their own investigation.

    I'm not sure if it will help you, but in our case the system worked the way its supposed to.

    1. Re:Try contacting state attourneys general by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      I have had good like with filing complaints with Attorney Generals. Recently I had Go Daddy refuse to transfer a domain I owned to another provider (die Go Daddy die die die). I complained to the Arizona attorney general and that was enough to get Go Daddy to see it my way.

      I think it's good advice. Give it a try.

  114. Re:Recourse? probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot, "our employees are our most valuable resource".

  115. lifetime is vague by ZeroNullVoid · · Score: 1

    Lifetime could mean many things.

    It could be lifetime of the service,
    Lifetime of the company,
    Lifetime of the consumer,
    Lifetime of the developer,
    Lifetime of their beta fish,
    Lifetime of the server,
    etc...

    1. Re:lifetime is vague by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      It COULD mean many things, but congratulations on failing to skim the summary.

  116. Re:Class action / "As long as we exist" = lifetime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RTFLink in the summary:

    The Mixed Grill – A Special Offer

    TextDrive, Strongspace and Joyent

    One-time payment of $499

    We're pleased to announce a special offer that combines three great products in our family — TextDrive, Strongspace and Joyent — available for a one-time payment of just $499.

    What do you get?

    TextDrive's spectacularly feature-rich web, mail and data hosting; oceans of backup room at Strongspace; early access to the future of web-based organization, communication and productivity through the Joyent suite of interconnected applications. Perfect for a smart small business or smart individuals of any size.

    Joyent is a party to the original agreement. Joyent still exists. This implies that Joyent at the very least is on the hook for the agreement.

  117. Even Consumer Reports stopped lifetime subs by davidwr · · Score: 1

    The magazine Consumer Reports used to offer lifetime subscriptions in exchange for a very large donation. I think it was something like $1000 in the late 1990s or early 2000s when they stopped offering it. Even at 3-4%, the interest on $1000 would more than cover a years' subscription.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  118. My response by McKing · · Score: 2

    This is my response, I just sent this back to the CEO.

    ---- start ----

    I am understandably upset by this particular turn of events, since the terms that I signed up for stated that this service would be available for "as long as we exist" http://web.archive.org/web/20060203030930/http://www.textdrive.com/mixedgrill. That's pretty cut and dried as far as I'm concerned.

    I'm not usually someone to make waves, but is my single little shared server with 2-3 domains pointed to it (that receive a few hundred hits a month) really impacting your bottom line enough to justify breaching the deal that we agreed to way back in the beginning?? If anything it costs you significantly less to maintain that service for my one account now than it did in 2006.

    The goodwill that offers like the Mixed Grill and your excellent service and customer support have earned you have been reciprocated by me (and other Mixed Grill customers) over the years in the glowing reviews that we have given you, increasing your customer base. If the other Mixed Grill users have been anything like me, they have recommended you to friends, coworkers, and business associates. They have probably enjoyed watching your company become the leading company to use Solaris and OpenSolaris technologies and they have probably been in awe of your advances with ZFS (as Strongspace), zones (with Shared Accelerators and now SmartOS), and they have been your biggest fans. I will bet that you have made a lot more money off of the Mixed Grill users than we have cost you. If the experience of Oracle with OpenSolaris has taught you anything, keeping the goodwill of your long-term fans and supporters is the most important resource that you have. Oracle learned the hard way that alienating your die-hard fans for short-term profit will probably hurt you in the long run.

    I urge you to rethink this decision, and approach the original Mixed Grill customers as fans and supporters, and let us keep our little Shared Accelerators, or just migrate us to SmartOS instances without charge and let us continue to enjoy the great service that you are known for, all under the spirit of the original agreement.

    ---- end ----

    --
    If only "common" sense was actually that common...
  119. People owe Joyent GREEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, someone had to post it.

  120. AOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still have an AOL account, they wont let me cancel. Halp?

  121. guarantee is good. by swschrad · · Score: 1

    your account was lifetime. the service's life is over. therefore, the guarantee is honored.

    this is how weasels think, and it's all around us. moral: they lie. back up your stuff.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:guarantee is good. by Zamphatta · · Score: 1

      In legality though, the clause "As long as we exist." means they can't cut off the service before the company goes out of business, not the lifetime of the service the company offered. Maybe Joyent could get around it if they folded the company & then started up again under a new name.... but they're not even doing that, so they're forced to keep the contract that was made when these customers signed up for accounts that would last as long as the company itself.

  122. He'll get most of his money back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    6 years / (90 - 20 years = 8.57% of his lifetime usage.

    They owe him about $US 456.23

  123. You are incorrect. by raehl · · Score: 1

    It's actually common practice when selling a company to only sell the assets of the company, leaving the liabilities with the original company. This is done so that the buyer can't be surprised by any unrealized liabilities/debts/lawsuits etc.

  124. Actually, your stupidity is being penalized. by raehl · · Score: 1

    It is almost NEVER a good idea to buy a lifetime membership in anything.

    "But, I can get a LIFETIME of (whatever) for only the cost of 10 years!"

    First problem with that is your breakeven point is much later than 10 years. If an annual membership costs $100, and the lifetime membership costs $1,000, then your break-even point is somewhere around year 20, not 10, because....

    $100 now is worth more than $100 in 10 years.

    If you instead bought a one-year membership, you could then invest the remaining $900 in something else, and use the proceeds from that investment to fund future membership purchases.

    And that's just the math. The other problem is the reality... ...what happens when the business goes out of business? ...what happens when the business changes fundamentally? Hours change, location changes, quality of service changes? ...what happens if YOU change, you move out of the service area, you change your habits, etc?

    Lifetime purchases are for suckers.

    1. Re:Actually, your stupidity is being penalized. by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      You didn't account for the expected increase in annual fees over a 10 year period.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  125. Yes, they do. by raehl · · Score: 1

    You're 100% wrong.

    You can absolutely sell the assets of a company without transferring the liabilities. I should know, I've done it twice.

    Now, if I sell $1 million in assets to my mother for $1, and then someone sues me, they're going to have a good cause for going after that $1 million. But if I sell $1 million in assets for $1 million, those assets are out of reach of anyone who wants to sue me.

  126. Re:Recourse Steam by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    And you believe their non-binding statements because?

  127. Re:Recourse? probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Based on your spelling you are either from Canada or the U.K. where the laws may vary from the U.S.

  128. Joyent should be careful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This undermines their credibility.

    I was going to use their platform for a project as a test but now I'll just stick with EC2 thanks.

  129. hello marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Engineering to Marketing -
    I've discovered this website, slashdot, where nerds or geeks hang out, and they are actually so silly that they believe that when they buy a "lifetime" offer it should extend for their lifetime.
    Mareting -
    no one is that clueless, are they ?
    e - these are the same people who seriously thought you could mine asteroids by crashing the asteroids into the ocean
    m - but wont they sue us over our lifetime product ?
    e - yeah, but instead of hiring a lawyer, they'll get some FOSS crowdsource lawyering software, adn then spend 6 months trying to get the printer driver working, and then they will sue the printer company
    m - don't these people have a life ?
    e - apparently not
    m - well if they are that clueless, why don't we sell them lifetime insurance for lifetime offers...

  130. small claims for MORE than 499 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    499 was what he paid back then. That's not what he can sue for today. Figure out what it would cost to buy the same lifetime service from someone else, plus the cost of moving, and that's what you sue for. As a plausible thing, pick some current hosting service, take the current monthly cost, calculate the Net Present Value of, say, 20 years worth of that service assuming some statistically defensible interest and cost change, and that's what you sue for. This is what insurance companies selling annuities are in the business of, after all.

    Say you can buy the service for $10/month For 240 months (that's 20 years), it would be $2400, if there's no interest/inflation.
    At today's small account passbook rates, the interest is essentially zero, and, these days, 10 year government bonds are effectively paying a negative rate of interest..

  131. Re:new owner may need to honour preexisting contra by Toonol · · Score: 1

    No, that's how it works in the US. This is a pretty clear win for the customer if he wishes to pursue it.

  132. Cantrill's Ego and Salary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... killed Sun and now it will kill Joyent.

  133. Re:Recourse? probably not by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    Lifetime is not reasonable. Also, the lifetime is probably stipulated nicely in the TOS. No one in business is going to offer lifetime anything. It is the TOS that really matters, forget the false advertising.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  134. Nothing in the Terms of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I found nothing in the archived Terms of Service, that stated they could or would terminate the service in this manner.

    If they terminate, they will be in breach of contract, plain and simple. Sue them.

  135. Welcome to the Cloud by golfnomad · · Score: 1

    Ground's not very solid is it?

  136. Re:Recourse? probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what gym costs 100 dollars a year? the cheapest I've seen in a small town is 40 dollars a month and in the cities, 100/month is pretty common (and I've seen it up to 250/month. If I could get a lifetime membership at a gym for 1000 bucks, I'd do it in an instant as it'll be paid for within a year (assuming it's not a crap gym in my city). Several gyms have a sign up fee of 1000 dollars......

    was this what they used to charge back in the 70s?

  137. Re:Recourse? probably not by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · · Score: 0

    The people with Tivo lifetime memberships brag about their financial prowess every chance they get.

    Well since you mentioned it, I have four tivo's and two directv-tivo's, all bought with lifetime around 6-11 years ago. They all still work, and they've been free to use since purchased. They even let me transfer the lifetime to another box a couple of times, then left it still working on the old one.

    On three other tivo's, I hacked in some huge hard drives and sold them for more than I paid for the box, hard drives and lifetime. I actually have come close to having a zero cost for all of my tivo's and lifetime.

    But then again I'm a multimillionaire that retired at 40, so I guess my financial prowess was already well established.

  138. Re:Recourse? probably not by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · · Score: 1

    This is a case of the CEO admitting "we would have to upgrade the hardware providing the service, and we don't want to do that".

    There are all sorts of things I don't want to do, but I'd be divorced and homeless if I quit doing them. Lifetime deals sound great for small businesses to bring in a lot of future income. But they do sort of have to remember that years later when all of that free early funding starts becoming onerous.

    If they don't want to upgrade the hardware for the older service, then give free lifetime usage for the new system.

    This is akin to saying "Hey, all you people about to retire next month? Yeah, well all that money you put into social security over the last 40 years got spent on pork, and we don't want to stop our frivolous spending so we can send you your retirement check."

    I guess the morale of the story is "Don't give out lifetime deals if you aren't planning on supporting them for a lifetime."

    I'm sure more will be spent on lawyers than it would have cost them to do the right thing.

  139. Contractually ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terms are only as valid as your will to pursue their enforcement in a court of law. In at practical sense, that means promises by customers are inviolable and promises by companies are meaningless. They will always find a loophole to get out of anything they now find undesirable. So, unless you can out lawyer them, you are screwed.

  140. Whose lifetime? by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

    So, the lifetime account is being revoked when the lifetime of the service expires. Sounds fair to me. What, you didn't think it was the lifetime of the customer they were talking about, did you?

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  141. Small Claims court by dontfearthereaper · · Score: 1

    Here's what you're probably looking at if they send no one: Judgement in your favor with a few stipulations you should be able to get... What you paid: $500.00 Add your court costs: (+/- $120.00) Add travel expenses, be prepared to produce invoices/receipts Add lost wages (pre tax, if applicable) Add legal fees (if allowed/applicable) Judgement against you: pay court costs waste vacation day(s) IF they send someone that knows what he's doing: Judgement in your favor: What you paid: $500.00 Add your court costs: (+/- $120.00) Add travel expenses, be prepared to produce invoices/receipts Add lost wages (pre tax, if applicable) Add legal fees (if allowed/applicable) Subtract what you would have paid on an annual agreement for the same time period you have had the service (if he/she's really good, monthly agreement) Judgement against you: pay court costs pay legal fees (if any, theirs and yours) If the defendant is a bloodsucking asshat: forced to fight likely counter suit which will cost you god knows what and probably put you in financial ruin... More than likely the judgement will be in your favor, unless the judge finds himself on their payroll.....

  142. Re:new owner may need to honour preexisting contra by rkinch · · Score: 1

    No, not at all. Buyouts are structured typically to buy *assets* only (including the trade name), not obligations (debts, contractual obligations, etc). Warranties go extinct in such cases. No knowledgeable businessman would buy a whole business in the sense of buying into potentially unlimited liabilities. When you buy anything for a "lifetime" of support or warranty, you are only in effect buying a promissory note from a business that may or may not even exist when you come calling to collect.

  143. Re:Recourse? probably not by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 2

    So far the government hasn't tried to do that with Social Security, but private companies do it all the time when they shed pension obligations and retiree health benefits when they're in Chapter 11. This amounts to making the employees and former employees take a retroactive pay cut - the value of those pensions was part of the package they agreed to when they took the job. The companies argue that "we can't meet those obligations and stay in business". Fine then, don't stay in business; liquidate the company to fund the pensions. Keeping companies operating shouldn't be sacrosanct; requiring companies to fulfill their promises to employees SHOULD be.

  144. Re:Recourse? probably not by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · · Score: 1

    110% correct. Somewhere along the line our corporate leadership stepped away from doing the right thing to doing the thing that gets them the biggest paychecks.

    But this is the mindset these days...how to get out of your obligations. Pensions, mortgages on underwater homes, etc.