The "right to refuse service" is a very much limited right. A business / corporate / others / cannot refuse service based on race, place of birth, religion, sexual orientation, political affillitiation, etc.
A restaurant which refuse service to a person who comes in a dirty and un-hygenic setup can be justified, as it will cause difficulties to their customers who are having food. Same logic will apply to a person who behaves improperly (yelling, using foul language,...) at a restaurant. A night club which refuses service to people who do not agree to their dress code restrictions, can be justified in the sense that they might lose business to rival clubs if members do not adhere to any particular dress code. A web site / service / online forum can be justified if they remove postings (refuse service) that are vulgar or promotes enmity, hatred, etc.. It is in their TOU that explicitly prohibits such postings. This can be justified as it will in some manner cause disruption to the normal and smooth conduct of the forum. A software developer can refuse software support if the customer tries to reverse engineer their software (disasembling, modifying ). It is their TOU that clearly prohibits such activities. However, there is no kill switch here. A device manufacturer (say a cd player) can cancel warranty if the user opens the cabinet or gets it serviced by unauthorised people, because the warranty document clearly says so and the user accepts this when buying the product. The device still may or may not work as usual, but the device manufacturer do not have the right to stop the working of the device. Software developers can upgrading software. Discontinuing old software support is also practiced after a reasonable time. (for eg;Microsoft has extended support for Windows XP to 2015). It has to be noted here that even after 2015, windows xp will still work (with no support from microsoft). There is no kill switch here too. However banning a user all together just because he writes negative reviews on forums is extreme. I dont think that any software manufacturer (microsoft/oracle/...) bans users from writing negative reviews about their product, or has ever killed the software of a user who writes negative reviews. Someone writing negative reviews somewhere, does in no way cause disruption in the working of your software. Also, it does not affect your existing customers / users in any way. No disruption of anything occurs. If your product is good more people will continue to use it, irrespective of any rogue user posting negative reviews. So it will take a jury to decide whether applying the "right to refuse service" in this case is legally justified or not. Anyway it would be interesting to see the following line in someone's App's TOU :-) "By downloading and using this software you lose your right to speak openly about the negative aspects of this software. You shall not post negative reviews about this product in forums / blogs or in other online / offline places. You also stand to lose your right to speak to someone negatively about this software. You are however encouraged to post positive aspects only about this software. You are hereby informed that in case of any negative reviews from your part, you will be banned from using this service. You will be disconnected without notice." :-) If this banning logic is applied, no body will be able to make any negative comments about anything, out of the fear of getting disconnected / banned. A journalist who reviews restaurants / films / etc will never be able to write negative reviews - out of the fear that the restaurant / film producer will ban the journalist from visiting the restaurant / viewing films of the producer in future. It is generally considered that a business can refuse service only to protect its legitimate business interest and to uphold the interests of its customers / users. This right is in a constant state of change and needs to be evolved further to clear ambiguities regarding in what all circumstances application of this right is legal and justified. What I feel is refusal of service should be done only as an extreme step (irrespective of whether the app is free or paid), and with utmost caution, unless you want to open yourself up to litigations. It is not clear whether google supports this kind of behavior from android apps or not. Anyway, this discussion group has been very much informative and live. -- Regards, Sony Antony. +919388700531 ---------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 10:16 PM, rich friedel <rich.frie...@gmail.com>wrote: > Microsoft just put verbiage in their newest XBL update that explicitly > forbids you to take part in a class action against them... To them I say... > good luck with that LOL > > > On Thursday, December 8, 2011 11:08:51 AM UTC-5, joel witherspoon wrote: >> >> >"Banning users" (not sure exactly what you mean by that) is one thing, >>> >but disabling an app that someone has already paid for? I don't think >>> >Microsoft or Oracle would do that. I think they'd be leaving >>> >themselves open to lawsuits. They can refuse to do any future business >>> >with anyone they want, but once a customer has purchased a product or >>> >service, they can't just renege on the contract. >>> >>> Microsoft, Oracle, AT&T, Verizon, etc. all do this. It's in there EULA >> and TOU contracts. When you accept that contract, you accept their >> administration of the product. They aren't reneging on a contract, they are >> enforcing it. That's why they can cut off your cable, DSL, phone, and >> computer game at a moments notice. Notice how root-kits got so much bad >> press then game publishers came out with tools such as "Steam" and >> "Origin"? Up front, in your face root kits. Read a EULA, you'll be amazed >> at what they can do to what you "own." >> >> As far as John is concerned, if it's in his EULA or TOU and the users >> accepts it or uses the product, they have to accept the kill switch. >> Rendall is correct, "no one has a inherent right to the application." This >> is not a social contract, it is a business contract. >> >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Android Discuss" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/android-discuss/-/1ryEuV-mnG0J. > > To post to this group, send email to android-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > android-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to android-discuss@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en.
