I guess it's an anti-karmic payback. I just had a session with IBM/Lenovo tech support that was the exact opposite of anything in my previous experience.
One of my machines is an R-40 - a 2723JBU, used primarily by my wife. Its three year warranty expired earlier this year. The battery started failing to hold a charge, so, I replaced the three year old battery. When that didn't fix it, I replaced the charger. When I still had a problem, tonight, I called Lenovo.
Ooops.
After punching in my machine type, I spent more than 20 minutes on hold, then was connected to IBM Canada...who listened to my story, then said, "Hey...let's switch you to someone in the States who can help you. A few minutes later I spoke to a quick succession of people who passed me from number to number, each with a lengthy list of menu options, and a long recording about the SONY battery problem.
Finally I reached hardware support, now in Atlanta (instead of North Carolina?). After reaching back for a 15 year old phone number (the one with which I'd started my IBM account) they found my customer information.
I was told that yes, it sounded like a system board problem. No, I couldn't extend the warranty after it expired. The charge to repair: somewhere near $575. I asked, well, when you have it, can you upgrade the hard drive, which is only 20 gig? No, I was told, that's your problem. Just pull the chip and put in a new one.
I explained, reasonably patiently, that I wanted a hard drive, not RAM.
No, said my rep, we don't do that either. You can buy a backup drive and a new hard drive, and do it yourself.
I think I started this piece of the thread by saying I hoped Lenovo would keep up IBM's superb level of tech support for Thinkpads. Well...I guess I'm not getting my wish.
I appreciate the points you're making, and I'm sure they're widely shared here - however, I couldn't disagree more with the suggestion that artists aren't entitled to earn their livings, through their creative efforts, with the same respect and legal protection as is anyone else. Further, if you decide that one class of individuals (you picked artists who sell their music) isn't entitled to legal protection, where do you stop? And how do you decide who gets protection? Those who are popular or whose work is popular? Do you take a vote?
Further, implicit in your argument is a suggestion that the record companies are not entitled to a return on their investments in the creative process and their efforts to distribute product legally - and argument I'd also reject.
Disclosure (it's on my website, but probably should be included here): I'm a member of and long have been active in the union which represents the interests of many performers, including recording artists.
As to P2P filesharing, I'd take the probably here unpopular view that it is a plain violation of the rights of the artists and/or recording companies.
That notwithstanding, I'm surprised that the complaint is even arguably sufficient. The sole paragraph that identifies the acts the defendant allegedly committed seems to me to lack sufficient specifics. That makes it all the more surprising that the RIAA would be correct, if it is when it argues that in three previous cases these specific allegations have been found to survive a motion to dismiss. http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elek tra_barker_oppositiontomotion - see pages 8-9. If the pleading standard is as "liberal" as the RIAA says it is, it ought not be.
That having been said, it seems to me silly that this is the level at which these cases are argued. If the defendant was file sharing, the RIAA should come forth with specific allegations...and then the case can quickly get to the substance, rather than spend time - and presumably both sides' money - on procedural irrelevancy. The obvious cure to the motion to dismiss, if the RIAA has facts to back their case, is an amended complaint with more specifics.
Sorry if that's less technically and more legally based than normal here.
As someone currently immersed in going through about 10,000 pages of paper copied e-mails plus another years worth in a couple of electronic formats let me say: you think it's boring on your end? Sheesh!
And, of course, there are those classic foward chains of everything from Osama jokes to pictures of various unclothed individuals. I'm sure the various investigators find those as delightful as do those who receive them.
Bottom line: if anyone still thinks e-mail is private...
One can only hope that Lenovo will keep up the unbelievably excellent support IBM had - and on that there is some cause for concern.
Thinkpad warranties that used to be three years are now only one, upgradeable to three if you pay an additional fee. And the best part of IBM's service, EasyServ, the program under which you could Fedex your Thinkpad to IBM, and have them repair it and return it in the next morning's Fedex, is an additional fee atop the additional fee.
My favorite old IBM Thinkpad story: I was in Oklahoma City, and dropped my 701C - the old Butterfly, from a height of about eight feet, onto concrete. Parts were hanging out of the cracked case...but the machine kept working, allowing me to backup as I called IBM. I explained what had happened to the customer service rep, who looked up the serial number, and advised me, "Oh...that machine's still under warranty. Fedex it to us...and we'll get it back to you." What, I asked, would it cost? "Nothing," he said, "it's under warranty, and the case is cracked."
In a moment of looking the gift horse in the mouth, I reminded him that it was cracked because I'd dropped it. He said, "So? It's under warranty and the case is cracked. Put it in a box and Fedex it to us, and you'll have it back tomorrow morning." They'd put their repair facility next door to Fedex in Memphis, got the broken machines off planes and fixed them, putting them back on outbound Fedex flights whenever possible. While they had it, they also upgraded the BIOS.
How great did I think it was? It's more than ten years later, and I still tell the story.
And I've purchased seven additional Thinkpads since, four of which are still functional - because when a part goes down, not only do they (as others have mentioned) sell parts, they make sure you can do the repair yourself. On their website, they have decent written instructions, paired with videos of more complex repairs.
And to this day, their parts service is fast and not overpriced.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=116463689942 5 is the law.com/Legal Times article on KSR International v. Teleflex, which will be argued before the Supreme Court today.
As the article points out, depending upon how wide ranging a decision the Court issues, this case has implications for millions of patents, many of which have been considered unassailable, having stood up to years of attacks.
The problem you cite in your hypothetical is potentially real, but your premise is wrong.
The California Supreme Court didn't provide the shield, Congress did, and the Court's decision makes that plain - something judges occasionally do when they make a decision that they recognize can yield the wrong result, but feel bound nonetheless to issue the decision because, hey, they don't make the laws, they just interpret them.
It should be no surprise that the troublesome section of law is part of the Communications Decency Act - the CDA has been problematic since it was hurriedly written...and parts of it have already been ruled to be unconstitutional.
There's a somewhat strange disconnect between the immunity granted by Congress in this type of case and the copyright/trademark cases in which ISPs and message board providers (to say nothing of file sharers like Napster) are found liable for contributory infringement if they refuse to take down material about which claims of a violation are made.
One might argue that granting the message board defamation immunity is a way to encourage (or at least not discourage) speech, by contrast with a more black & white test of trademark/copyright infringement...but I'm not sure that the argument is entirely satisfactory.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess it's an anti-karmic payback. I just had a session with IBM/Lenovo tech support that was the exact opposite of anything in my previous experience.
One of my machines is an R-40 - a 2723JBU, used primarily by my wife. Its three year warranty expired earlier this year. The battery started failing to hold a charge, so, I replaced the three year old battery. When that didn't fix it, I replaced the charger. When I still had a problem, tonight, I called Lenovo.
Ooops.
After punching in my machine type, I spent more than 20 minutes on hold, then was connected to IBM Canada...who listened to my story, then said, "Hey...let's switch you to someone in the States who can help you. A few minutes later I spoke to a quick succession of people who passed me from number to number, each with a lengthy list of menu options, and a long recording about the SONY battery problem.
Finally I reached hardware support, now in Atlanta (instead of North Carolina?). After reaching back for a 15 year old phone number (the one with which I'd started my IBM account) they found my customer information.
I was told that yes, it sounded like a system board problem. No, I couldn't extend the warranty after it expired. The charge to repair: somewhere near $575. I asked, well, when you have it, can you upgrade the hard drive, which is only 20 gig? No, I was told, that's your problem. Just pull the chip and put in a new one.
I explained, reasonably patiently, that I wanted a hard drive, not RAM.
No, said my rep, we don't do that either. You can buy a backup drive and a new hard drive, and do it yourself.
I think I started this piece of the thread by saying I hoped Lenovo would keep up IBM's superb level of tech support for Thinkpads. Well...I guess I'm not getting my wish.
I appreciate the points you're making, and I'm sure they're widely shared here - however, I couldn't disagree more with the suggestion that artists aren't entitled to earn their livings, through their creative efforts, with the same respect and legal protection as is anyone else. Further, if you decide that one class of individuals (you picked artists who sell their music) isn't entitled to legal protection, where do you stop? And how do you decide who gets protection? Those who are popular or whose work is popular? Do you take a vote?
Further, implicit in your argument is a suggestion that the record companies are not entitled to a return on their investments in the creative process and their efforts to distribute product legally - and argument I'd also reject.
Disclosure (it's on my website, but probably should be included here): I'm a member of and long have been active in the union which represents the interests of many performers, including recording artists.
As to P2P filesharing, I'd take the probably here unpopular view that it is a plain violation of the rights of the artists and/or recording companies. That notwithstanding, I'm surprised that the complaint is even arguably sufficient. The sole paragraph that identifies the acts the defendant allegedly committed seems to me to lack sufficient specifics. That makes it all the more surprising that the RIAA would be correct, if it is when it argues that in three previous cases these specific allegations have been found to survive a motion to dismiss. http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elek tra_barker_oppositiontomotion - see pages 8-9. If the pleading standard is as "liberal" as the RIAA says it is, it ought not be.
That having been said, it seems to me silly that this is the level at which these cases are argued. If the defendant was file sharing, the RIAA should come forth with specific allegations...and then the case can quickly get to the substance, rather than spend time - and presumably both sides' money - on procedural irrelevancy. The obvious cure to the motion to dismiss, if the RIAA has facts to back their case, is an amended complaint with more specifics.
Sorry if that's less technically and more legally based than normal here.
As someone currently immersed in going through about 10,000 pages of paper copied e-mails plus another years worth in a couple of electronic formats let me say: you think it's boring on your end? Sheesh! And, of course, there are those classic foward chains of everything from Osama jokes to pictures of various unclothed individuals. I'm sure the various investigators find those as delightful as do those who receive them. Bottom line: if anyone still thinks e-mail is private...
One can only hope that Lenovo will keep up the unbelievably excellent support IBM had - and on that there is some cause for concern. Thinkpad warranties that used to be three years are now only one, upgradeable to three if you pay an additional fee. And the best part of IBM's service, EasyServ, the program under which you could Fedex your Thinkpad to IBM, and have them repair it and return it in the next morning's Fedex, is an additional fee atop the additional fee. My favorite old IBM Thinkpad story: I was in Oklahoma City, and dropped my 701C - the old Butterfly, from a height of about eight feet, onto concrete. Parts were hanging out of the cracked case...but the machine kept working, allowing me to backup as I called IBM. I explained what had happened to the customer service rep, who looked up the serial number, and advised me, "Oh...that machine's still under warranty. Fedex it to us...and we'll get it back to you." What, I asked, would it cost? "Nothing," he said, "it's under warranty, and the case is cracked." In a moment of looking the gift horse in the mouth, I reminded him that it was cracked because I'd dropped it. He said, "So? It's under warranty and the case is cracked. Put it in a box and Fedex it to us, and you'll have it back tomorrow morning." They'd put their repair facility next door to Fedex in Memphis, got the broken machines off planes and fixed them, putting them back on outbound Fedex flights whenever possible. While they had it, they also upgraded the BIOS. How great did I think it was? It's more than ten years later, and I still tell the story. And I've purchased seven additional Thinkpads since, four of which are still functional - because when a part goes down, not only do they (as others have mentioned) sell parts, they make sure you can do the repair yourself. On their website, they have decent written instructions, paired with videos of more complex repairs. And to this day, their parts service is fast and not overpriced.
I'll confess to being a Yahoo answerer myself - in one area only Law and Ethics http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylt=AokF2mShZY D20LVNP232oRDsy6IX?sid=396545448 . The questions can be repetitive and the search function needs serious work, though given that the service is free, there isn't much incentive to search rather than simply post a question anew.
However, every once in a while you actually can provide decent information to someone, though homework assignments show up with an astonishing regularity.
Only once have I actually pulled a client from the answers http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsuR_ ZfPsCP9dp4jgjS3pcjsy6IX?qid=20061119211700AAYRGBu& show=7#profile-info-acba039c897f3b3cf5649cfb0a4880 ccaa , which makes me wonder why I do it.
The only answer that makes any sense is to build up links to my law firm's site http://www.browdelaw.info/ ...which may or may not be the most ethical of practices.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=116463689942 5 is the law.com/Legal Times article on KSR International v. Teleflex, which will be argued before the Supreme Court today.
As the article points out, depending upon how wide ranging a decision the Court issues, this case has implications for millions of patents, many of which have been considered unassailable, having stood up to years of attacks.
The problem you cite in your hypothetical is potentially real, but your premise is wrong. The California Supreme Court didn't provide the shield, Congress did, and the Court's decision makes that plain - something judges occasionally do when they make a decision that they recognize can yield the wrong result, but feel bound nonetheless to issue the decision because, hey, they don't make the laws, they just interpret them. It should be no surprise that the troublesome section of law is part of the Communications Decency Act - the CDA has been problematic since it was hurriedly written...and parts of it have already been ruled to be unconstitutional.
There's a somewhat strange disconnect between the immunity granted by Congress in this type of case and the copyright/trademark cases in which ISPs and message board providers (to say nothing of file sharers like Napster) are found liable for contributory infringement if they refuse to take down material about which claims of a violation are made. One might argue that granting the message board defamation immunity is a way to encourage (or at least not discourage) speech, by contrast with a more black & white test of trademark/copyright infringement...but I'm not sure that the argument is entirely satisfactory.