At 1:06 am -0500 3/3/01, Michael W. Wellman wrote:
>> I remain at the 'I disagree' stage on this topic.
>
>Disagreement is a sign of a healthy society. ;-)
>
>> Where the box/advertising makes a claim, and that claim is
>>demonstrably false,
>> not because of some unique combination of differing hardware, operating
>> systems or solar cycles but because there is a shortcoming or failing in the
>> implementation of that feature the publisher failed to mention, the buyer
>> should be entitled to recover the cost of the software AND any other costs
>> incurred in the process of discovering that the shortcoming was such as to
>> render the software unsatisfactory for his purposes. I also belive that this
>> final requirement is only fair as well - the user should be able to
>> demonstrate that the shortcoming directly affects the usefulness of the
>> software for him, otherwise you would get a string of spurious claims for
>> esoteric, unnecessary features not working as advertised.
>
>I've many wonderfully pragmatic issues with your scenario, but I'll try to
>keep them relatively short.
>
>Define, in a legal sense:
> "demonstrably false"
> "unique combination"
> "shortcoming or failing"
> "unsatisfactory"
> "esoteric, unnecessary features"
The coursts have frequently defined 'False Advertising' <g>
>
>
>1) E'rage claims to support IMAP. However, certain versions of EIMS (an
>IMAP server) return "interesting" values in response to certain IMAP
>commands.
This is what I would exclude under the 'unique combination' heading.
E'rage works with the majority of IMAP servers. EIMS v3 sends the
data in an order that E'rage does not expect. In General, IMAP in
E'rage works as advertised. There is a narrow combination of
circumstances where it doesn't.
However, your example is flawed. In this case, it is EIMS that is
working within the terms of the RFC, and E'rage does not. IF the user
could demonstrate that IMAP support was a major contributor to his
decision to purchase O'01 then I believe he SHOULD be entitled to
recover his costs (and stop using the software, naturally)
>
>2) E'rage claims to support mail filters. However, if you have more than 10
>criteria, the application may crash. I believe that this is noted in the
>ReadMe.
>
>3) E'rage claims to support "Palm syncing". However, if you have an E'rage
>category whose name is longer than 16 characters, things will go awry.
>
>4) E'rage claims to support "Palm syncing". However, if you create too many
>categories, only some will be synced with the Palm.
>
>5) E'rage claims to support "Palm syncing". However, if you create the
>categories on your Macintosh (and do some other as yet unknown steps), when
>you sync with the Palm, you may end up with duplicated items.
If the user doesn't have a palm then he shouldn't (normally) have a
claim. If he does AND the palm support was a major factor in the
purcahase, then maybe he should.
Could he read the ReadMe in the shop BEFORE buying the software? Were
the 'known issues' made known/explained TO HIM at the time of
purchase? It wouldn't take a lot to satisfy the needs for accurate
advertising. A simple caveat against the claims made stating that
some limitations apply to that feature and interested parties could
ask for details etc.
>
>
>Now, considering the above situations.
>
>Which are actionable and which are inconveniences?
Ultimately, that's the courts decision. However, if more people took
that action, the software companies would soon decide to put their
house in order rather than pay their lawyers all that money!
>
>[Snip]
>
>Henceforth I shall sue if the "Purchase by" date on the milk is
>inaccurate...
That you are entitled to do!
--
=Barry Wainwright=
Common Sense is the best distributed commodity in the world, for
every man is convinced that he is well supplied with it. -- René
Descartes, 1637
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
