A monopoly exists when a firm controls the vast majority of a market share. The StorageTek tape drive product does not constitute a market. It is part of a market in which StorageTek competes. If StorageTek were indeed a monopoly, this issue would suck because nobody would be able to migrate over to a new product. Since StorageTek is not a monopoly, and tape drives are substituable, StorageTek will probably back-off when customers stop buying their products.
A monopoly exists in a market. A market-share is not a little market unto itself that a company can monopolize. An abuse of monopolistic powers entails things like erecting barriers to entry that nobody can surmount (like selling aluminum really really cheap until there are no other aluminum companies and you can raise the price of aluminum higher than it would otherwise be in a competitive market). In StorageTek's case, people always have a choice as the principle of substitution still applies. People can always use a substitutable product and StorageTek will have to recant their practices or face a shutdown decision for that product-line.
Webster: Misrepresentation is to give a false or misleading representation of usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair *misrepresented the facts*
Real presents users with a misleading form with the intent to deceive users into opting-in. Their intent is to make users believe that there is no clause that would add their email address to a spam list when indeed there is. Furthermore, the users are automatically opted-in without consent. It is without their consent because they never knew that Real made that selection for them. This constitutes a deception and therefore a misrepresentation.
These practices are misrepresentative. They are wrong and should be made illegal not because people's email address's were surreptitiously added to spam lists but because any kind of misleading and deceptive practices should be eliminated from contractual forms. If it is perfectly legal to trick people into opting-in, then it is perfectly legal to hide surprise fees and other exploitive devices. All of which violate basic rights of consumers.
I think it is wrong for the same reason a lie is wrong. The thing that makes a lie is not as much the fact that one is stating an untruth but because the motivation of the lie is to thwart another person's autonomy. Lies are intended to induce behavior that a person would not normally behave if they know the truth.
Similarly, deceptive contracts and sign-up forms hide "opt-in" check boxes because people would not normally check them if they knew that this option was given to them.
I am not saying that I believe Real is committing a lie but that I believe their intentions are the same: To thwart people's autonomy so that they do something (opt-in) that they would not do if they know the whole truth (the fact that there is a hidden check box).
That is wrong, in my opinion.
If intentionally lying to customers in a contract in order to exploit them is illegal, then why should hiding components to a contract from them be any different?
Slashdot Mirror
A monopoly exists when a firm controls the vast majority of a market share. The StorageTek tape drive product does not constitute a market. It is part of a market in which StorageTek competes. If StorageTek were indeed a monopoly, this issue would suck because nobody would be able to migrate over to a new product. Since StorageTek is not a monopoly, and tape drives are substituable, StorageTek will probably back-off when customers stop buying their products.
A monopoly exists in a market. A market-share is not a little market unto itself that a company can monopolize. An abuse of monopolistic powers entails things like erecting barriers to entry that nobody can surmount (like selling aluminum really really cheap until there are no other aluminum companies and you can raise the price of aluminum higher than it would otherwise be in a competitive market). In StorageTek's case, people always have a choice as the principle of substitution still applies. People can always use a substitutable product and StorageTek will have to recant their practices or face a shutdown decision for that product-line.
How can you say that it is not misrepresentation?
Real presents users with a misleading form with the intent to deceive users into opting-in. Their intent is to make users believe that there is no clause that would add their email address to a spam list when indeed there is. Furthermore, the users are automatically opted-in without consent. It is without their consent because they never knew that Real made that selection for them. This constitutes a deception and therefore a misrepresentation.
These practices are misrepresentative. They are wrong and should be made illegal not because people's email address's were surreptitiously added to spam lists but because any kind of misleading and deceptive practices should be eliminated from contractual forms. If it is perfectly legal to trick people into opting-in, then it is perfectly legal to hide surprise fees and other exploitive devices. All of which violate basic rights of consumers.
I think it is wrong for the same reason a lie is wrong. The thing that makes a lie is not as much the fact that one is stating an untruth but because the motivation of the lie is to thwart another person's autonomy. Lies are intended to induce behavior that a person would not normally behave if they know the truth.
Similarly, deceptive contracts and sign-up forms hide "opt-in" check boxes because people would not normally check them if they knew that this option was given to them.
I am not saying that I believe Real is committing a lie but that I believe their intentions are the same: To thwart people's autonomy so that they do something (opt-in) that they would not do if they know the whole truth (the fact that there is a hidden check box).
That is wrong, in my opinion.
If intentionally lying to customers in a contract in order to exploit them is illegal, then why should hiding components to a contract from them be any different?
The Roman Empire did the same thing, as a predecessor to their collapse.
As well as neglecting to kill the barbarians at the proverbial gates.