In the UK we have the Data Protection Act. AFAIK it places no restrictions on the public, but it means that companies need to have to have a good, legitimate reason to keep data. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this. A person > a company, agree or disagree?
(And yes, I do think the streetview photos do have a good legitimate reason)
Did this person happen to buy the software from Adobe (unlikely to be cheaper than anywhere else), or is this yet another case in the US confusing us Europeans where the manufacturer is sued instead of the retailer? (like the recent US PS3 class actions against Sony VS the British owner getting a partial refund from Amazon)
Here in the UK, the retailer is liable for anything like this, and I'm pretty sure there's a European Directive to the same effect. I think manufacturers are liable for things like super bad business practices, but you can get the retailer for a much easier to prove breach of implied merchantability.
I don't have much to say other than I completely agree with you, the same thing happens with the OfficeJet 6310 All in One. It even requires a colour ink cartridge. I hardly ever print in colour, so I'd rather not buy a refilled cartridge in advance in case it turns out faulty, I've had quite bad luck with manual black refilling, and I'm certainly not buying a new cartridge. So if I use up my colour ink then I can't scan, fax or even print without colour for a few days.
When I discovered this I was half tempted to go back to the retailer and ask for a partial refund under the Sale of Goods Act (UK) to compensate, as it really isn't fit for purpose if it can't scan or fax without ink.
In the scenario I outlined you are buying directly from Microsoft. Since Microsoft don't have any stores (...correct?) I thought it was obvious I meant say buying online, and that these were terms of the sale made clear to you beforehand rather than an EULA. Not bought in a shop.
Ubuntu and OSS discs are not automatically excluded. Unless it's made clear to him, a consumer has equal rights whether he buys a Ubuntu disc or a Windows disc, which is why I say a seller of OSS discs needs to be careful.
Say you buy something in a shop. If the shop says "X is broken", then obviously you have no rights when it turns out X is broken, and (depending on the product) it could break further and still be "fit for purpose". If a shop instead said "The product is sold as is, I have no responsibility if X breaks", such a term would be invalid under the Sale of Goods Act or similar, whether it was in fine print or they shouted it at you. A shop would not sell a completely working product and say "X is broken" to reduce their liability, as that would lose sales.
Software is different, as we do want people to be able to sell alpha software "as is" under certain circumstances (or am I wrong?). If you buy Microsoft Office (directly from Microsoft), we want them to be held responsible if it isn't fit for purpose. If Microsoft included a term simply saying "We are not held responsible if it breaks", that would be invalid. However what if Microsoft said "This is testing software that will have bugs, we are not held responsible if it breaks". We do not want that term to be valid if they were selling Microsoft Office, however we would want it to be valid if they were (hypothetically) selling Microsoft Office Alpha Test Version.
I imagine the correct balance is to judge how obvious it was made that the product was a test version. However this goes against my normal instinct that "fine print" is as legally valid as "regular print" in most circumstances.
The other issue being raised is people selling OSS software on discs. I do not think this is an issue - make it clear that you can get the software for free from $website and that you are selling the service of giving the buyer the software, something that cannot be argued with non-free software.
Financial Data isn't kept secret due to copyright laws, it's done so due to data protection laws. Surely I'm not wrong in assuming Australia has those? (Or the US for that matter, as I assume the submitter is from).
Is it me or do Apple get in trouble in the UK a lot? I think there's about 4 Apple adverts that have been deemed false advertising by ASA, and now this? Have they really not bothered to hire any UK lawyers?
Anyway this is a bit of a moot point. Terms in a contract that contradict the Distance Selling Regulations or the Sale of Goods act are obviously null (especially so if Apple included the line "This does not affect your statutory rights" or similar), and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 will almost certainly nullify any term like "Apple reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time." I'm happy about this story but am confused as Apple definitely won't be the only well known company in the UK to do things like these (Microsoft?)
Haha, the OP's country (which I'm not risking saying is the USA in case it's somewhere else with $) clearly does not have some equivalent to Ryanair.
Say what you want about Ryanair, but if a normal plane ticket costs $300, then for less than £10 (1p if you try hard) I'm very happy to have substandard customer service and not check in any bags. And both times I travelled with them the service wasn't even substandard.
And just to make the comments a complete how-to guide for UK consumers: If you paid on a VISA debit card (not sure about Electron) then you can perform a "VISA Chargeback" with your bank to get your money back. This isn't enshrined in law so it might not work, and some of the banks' call centres will not be trained in this procedure and have no idea what you're on about, but it's obviously worth a shot.
The EU Directive you speak of has got to be one of the most misquoted things ever. For a start, the EU Directive is a directive, the member states have to incorporate it into their own laws - it's not an actual law itself. All it states is that any limitation period for seeking damages is minimum 2 years, it nowhere states that goods have to last 2 years (although I'd love it if you could prove me wrong). The Sale of Goods act says goods have to last a "reasonable length of time", and the limitation is 6 years. As such, the Sale of Goods act is the UK's way of satisfying that part of the directive.
Also think about what you're saying, "all consumer goods" have to last 2 years? Do you really think you have a recourse if your value-range ballpoint pen breaks after a month?
Our government run system hasn't been completely bad in the UK these past few years. The problem with it and the Australians' system is that they have the power to BAN things. No one would be complaining about any government run system if they didn't have such power (assuming there wasn't a do-no-NC-17 mantra that plagues the US...we have that here for R18, but it takes a LOT to get a British R18 rating). And of course, if the MPAA were government run then you could cite the 1st amendment to prevent banning.
And seriously, can someone tell me what your MPAA was smoking when it gave "Howard The Duck" and "Short Circuit 2" PG ratings? (Yeah. I've been watching The Nostalgia Critic lately). One has duck boobs and another had complete downright swearing. I think at least the latter deserves a PG-13 rating a lot more than the thing in the Simpsons movie that made it PG-13;-)
The retailers don't lose out when you return it to them, they just return it to Microsoft and claim back off of them. As such there's no real loss for the retailer in accepting returns and offering replacements.
While Microsoft would reimburse the retailer for the actual console, I imagine that just like when you're taking the faulty 360 back to the retailer you don't get reimbursed for travel costs (except very rarely), there will be some kind of overhead cost for the retailer that Microsoft is not reimbursing them for. On an individual basis that loss might be small, or as you said not a "real loss", but it might become massive when you consider how many defective consoles there are.
No good examples are coming to my mind...how about that a big store would have so many returns that they'd need someone to spend 30 minutes each day filling out all the paperwork required to return it.
Also the Sales of Goods act may give the consumers more protection from the retailer over a faulty console than whatever company law gives the retailer protection from Microsoft, hence some percentage of consoles may not be claimable for the retailer.
At least for us Brits, it's time we stopped relying on these warranties and go back to the good ol' Sale of Goods act, where goods must last "a reasonable length of time" and the liability is with the retailer. My brother keeps bringing his consoles back to GAME, and they just give him a new one except the hard drive (annoyingly meaning he has to be signed in to live to use content downloaded on a previous Xbox, but IIRC MS don't always give you your exact console back). Quick and easy. If enough people do this, it will eventually become infeasible for many retailers to actually stock the Xbox, and THEN Microsoft may actually do something.
Okay that's wishful thinking and isn't going to happen, but considering it's usually a lot easier and quicker to take it back to the retailer than send it to MS, you should do it anyway.
Under what definition of 'market penetration' possibly puts the Xbox 360 above the Wii? I mean I think more sales, the faster rate of sales, and just about every other statistic (your gran has one) is a bit more real evidence than the sample size that is your friends.
I mean, you wouldn't be advocating censorship based solely on your baseless assumptions and anecdotal evidence, would you? Because *that* would be a really *really* bad idea.
Well he's obviously Germany's national police union chief.
Slashdot Mirror
In the UK we have the Data Protection Act. AFAIK it places no restrictions on the public, but it means that companies need to have to have a good, legitimate reason to keep data. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this. A person > a company, agree or disagree?
(And yes, I do think the streetview photos do have a good legitimate reason)
Did this person happen to buy the software from Adobe (unlikely to be cheaper than anywhere else), or is this yet another case in the US confusing us Europeans where the manufacturer is sued instead of the retailer? (like the recent US PS3 class actions against Sony VS the British owner getting a partial refund from Amazon)
Here in the UK, the retailer is liable for anything like this, and I'm pretty sure there's a European Directive to the same effect. I think manufacturers are liable for things like super bad business practices, but you can get the retailer for a much easier to prove breach of implied merchantability.
I don't have much to say other than I completely agree with you, the same thing happens with the OfficeJet 6310 All in One. It even requires a colour ink cartridge. I hardly ever print in colour, so I'd rather not buy a refilled cartridge in advance in case it turns out faulty, I've had quite bad luck with manual black refilling, and I'm certainly not buying a new cartridge. So if I use up my colour ink then I can't scan, fax or even print without colour for a few days.
When I discovered this I was half tempted to go back to the retailer and ask for a partial refund under the Sale of Goods Act (UK) to compensate, as it really isn't fit for purpose if it can't scan or fax without ink.
http://www.dilbert.com/fast/1989-06-10/
I say rather than fines, we ban one of those companies from the US market forever.
That would be a very interesting punishment for the European Union to give.
In the scenario I outlined you are buying directly from Microsoft. Since Microsoft don't have any stores (...correct?) I thought it was obvious I meant say buying online, and that these were terms of the sale made clear to you beforehand rather than an EULA. Not bought in a shop.
Ubuntu and OSS discs are not automatically excluded. Unless it's made clear to him, a consumer has equal rights whether he buys a Ubuntu disc or a Windows disc, which is why I say a seller of OSS discs needs to be careful.
Say you buy something in a shop. If the shop says "X is broken", then obviously you have no rights when it turns out X is broken, and (depending on the product) it could break further and still be "fit for purpose". If a shop instead said "The product is sold as is, I have no responsibility if X breaks", such a term would be invalid under the Sale of Goods Act or similar, whether it was in fine print or they shouted it at you. A shop would not sell a completely working product and say "X is broken" to reduce their liability, as that would lose sales.
Software is different, as we do want people to be able to sell alpha software "as is" under certain circumstances (or am I wrong?). If you buy Microsoft Office (directly from Microsoft), we want them to be held responsible if it isn't fit for purpose. If Microsoft included a term simply saying "We are not held responsible if it breaks", that would be invalid. However what if Microsoft said "This is testing software that will have bugs, we are not held responsible if it breaks". We do not want that term to be valid if they were selling Microsoft Office, however we would want it to be valid if they were (hypothetically) selling Microsoft Office Alpha Test Version.
I imagine the correct balance is to judge how obvious it was made that the product was a test version. However this goes against my normal instinct that "fine print" is as legally valid as "regular print" in most circumstances.
The other issue being raised is people selling OSS software on discs. I do not think this is an issue - make it clear that you can get the software for free from $website and that you are selling the service of giving the buyer the software, something that cannot be argued with non-free software.
Not that anyone will read this before posting, but
Inquiry != prosecution.
Not that you read the summary before posting...
An inquiry doesn't necessarily mean action will be taken against Apple
I wish someone told me beforehand that you get troll moderation for making the joke and funny moderation for explaining the joke. I must be new here.
That's the same as 0.15 cents. That's cheap!
Financial Data isn't kept secret due to copyright laws, it's done so due to data protection laws. Surely I'm not wrong in assuming Australia has those? (Or the US for that matter, as I assume the submitter is from).
I still have copies 2 of them (NES and GBA, though to be fair the GBA version was to get the first official US version of FF2).
First official US relese of FF2? Origins for PS1?
Did you not notice the lack of space for a 5th character in the party in the screenshot, implying there's no way it could be FFIV?
Wait, those were Apple ads? I assumed they were Microsoft ads since the far better comedian was the PC.
Is it me or do Apple get in trouble in the UK a lot? I think there's about 4 Apple adverts that have been deemed false advertising by ASA, and now this? Have they really not bothered to hire any UK lawyers?
Anyway this is a bit of a moot point. Terms in a contract that contradict the Distance Selling Regulations or the Sale of Goods act are obviously null (especially so if Apple included the line "This does not affect your statutory rights" or similar), and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 will almost certainly nullify any term like "Apple reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time." I'm happy about this story but am confused as Apple definitely won't be the only well known company in the UK to do things like these (Microsoft?)
you already paid $300+ on a plane ticket
Haha, the OP's country (which I'm not risking saying is the USA in case it's somewhere else with $) clearly does not have some equivalent to Ryanair.
Say what you want about Ryanair, but if a normal plane ticket costs $300, then for less than £10 (1p if you try hard) I'm very happy to have substandard customer service and not check in any bags. And both times I travelled with them the service wasn't even substandard.
And just to make the comments a complete how-to guide for UK consumers: If you paid on a VISA debit card (not sure about Electron) then you can perform a "VISA Chargeback" with your bank to get your money back. This isn't enshrined in law so it might not work, and some of the banks' call centres will not be trained in this procedure and have no idea what you're on about, but it's obviously worth a shot.
That's because it's not true.
The EU Directive you speak of has got to be one of the most misquoted things ever. For a start, the EU Directive is a directive, the member states have to incorporate it into their own laws - it's not an actual law itself. All it states is that any limitation period for seeking damages is minimum 2 years, it nowhere states that goods have to last 2 years (although I'd love it if you could prove me wrong). The Sale of Goods act says goods have to last a "reasonable length of time", and the limitation is 6 years. As such, the Sale of Goods act is the UK's way of satisfying that part of the directive.
Also think about what you're saying, "all consumer goods" have to last 2 years? Do you really think you have a recourse if your value-range ballpoint pen breaks after a month?
She should have had to pay infinity billion dollars...
That's the spirit toadwarrior! But I think a real number might be more effective.
It's not the summery, it's actually TFA that makes this mistake. I've never heard of examiner.com, is it a reputable source? More informative, earlier and not-calling-it-a-market link
Our government run system hasn't been completely bad in the UK these past few years. The problem with it and the Australians' system is that they have the power to BAN things. No one would be complaining about any government run system if they didn't have such power (assuming there wasn't a do-no-NC-17 mantra that plagues the US...we have that here for R18, but it takes a LOT to get a British R18 rating). And of course, if the MPAA were government run then you could cite the 1st amendment to prevent banning.
And seriously, can someone tell me what your MPAA was smoking when it gave "Howard The Duck" and "Short Circuit 2" PG ratings? (Yeah. I've been watching The Nostalgia Critic lately). One has duck boobs and another had complete downright swearing. I think at least the latter deserves a PG-13 rating a lot more than the thing in the Simpsons movie that made it PG-13 ;-)
The retailers don't lose out when you return it to them, they just return it to Microsoft and claim back off of them. As such there's no real loss for the retailer in accepting returns and offering replacements.
While Microsoft would reimburse the retailer for the actual console, I imagine that just like when you're taking the faulty 360 back to the retailer you don't get reimbursed for travel costs (except very rarely), there will be some kind of overhead cost for the retailer that Microsoft is not reimbursing them for. On an individual basis that loss might be small, or as you said not a "real loss", but it might become massive when you consider how many defective consoles there are.
No good examples are coming to my mind...how about that a big store would have so many returns that they'd need someone to spend 30 minutes each day filling out all the paperwork required to return it.
Also the Sales of Goods act may give the consumers more protection from the retailer over a faulty console than whatever company law gives the retailer protection from Microsoft, hence some percentage of consoles may not be claimable for the retailer.
At least for us Brits, it's time we stopped relying on these warranties and go back to the good ol' Sale of Goods act, where goods must last "a reasonable length of time" and the liability is with the retailer. My brother keeps bringing his consoles back to GAME, and they just give him a new one except the hard drive (annoyingly meaning he has to be signed in to live to use content downloaded on a previous Xbox, but IIRC MS don't always give you your exact console back). Quick and easy. If enough people do this, it will eventually become infeasible for many retailers to actually stock the Xbox, and THEN Microsoft may actually do something.
Okay that's wishful thinking and isn't going to happen, but considering it's usually a lot easier and quicker to take it back to the retailer than send it to MS, you should do it anyway.
Microsoft may have the most market penetration...
Under what definition of 'market penetration' possibly puts the Xbox 360 above the Wii? I mean I think more sales, the faster rate of sales, and just about every other statistic (your gran has one) is a bit more real evidence than the sample size that is your friends.
I mean, you wouldn't be advocating censorship based solely on your baseless assumptions and anecdotal evidence, would you? Because *that* would be a really *really* bad idea.
Well he's obviously Germany's national police union chief.