CAD program dongle vs. Acer laptop

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 05:02:17 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Ian Singer wrote
SMS wrote

Send an invoice for the $400 CDN to the company whose CAD program it is.

When they refuse to pay, sue them in small claims court in Canada (do you have that there?).

What would he use as grounds?

That their stupid protection scheme had produced
goods that arent of merchantable quality.

Remembering you do not buy software but a license to use it

That is just plain wrong, whatever they claim.

and no one guarantees compatibility with hardware that had not been invented yet.

Irrelevant to their stupid protection scheme.

They can obviously provide a mechanism to remove that.


It might be a stupid and short-sighted scheme, but if they
clearly disclosed the hardware requirement prior to or at
the time of purchase, they're off the hook.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 06:50:55 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


Nope, not when their stupid protection scheme is such a collosal kludge.

They should have replaced the stupid protection scheme when it
became clear that the kludge they were using was just that and if
they arent prepared to do that, they get to pay for getting that done.



If only it were that simple, but by those standards half the
software out there would be recalled, including Windows.
I'm not suggesting it's ok though, but rather such standards
have to be applied equally, not just at the convenience or
expense of one but not the rest.

kony wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Ian Singer wrote
SMS wrote

Send an invoice for the $400 CDN to the company whose CAD program it is.

When they refuse to pay, sue them in small claims court in Canada
(do you have that there?).

What would he use as grounds?

That their stupid protection scheme had produced
goods that arent of merchantable quality.

Remembering you do not buy software but a license to use it

That is just plain wrong, whatever they claim.

and no one guarantees compatibility with hardware that had not been
invented yet.

Irrelevant to their stupid protection scheme.

They can obviously provide a mechanism to remove that.


It might be a stupid and short-sighted scheme, but if they
clearly disclosed the hardware requirement prior to or at
the time of purchase, they're off the hook.

Nope.

In spades with Canada where they are very unlikely to bother to show
up in Canada and the court is likely to just enter a default judgement
against them given the realtively small amount of money in dispute.

kony wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Nope, not when their stupid protection scheme is such a collosal kludge.

They should have replaced the stupid protection scheme when it
became clear that the kludge they were using was just that and if
they arent prepared to do that, they get to pay for getting that done.

If only it were that simple,

It is when the small claims court action is in Canada and they
are very bloody unlikely indeed to bother to front the court
when such a relatively small amount of money is involved.

but by those standards half the software out
there would be recalled, including Windows.

Mindlessly silly. MS particularly does update their OSs to handle stuff like this.

I'm not suggesting it's ok though, but rather such standards have to be
applied equally, not just at the convenience or expense of one but not the rest.

Wrong with a small claims court action where the vendor
isnt going to bother to defend the claim in a foreign country
with such a relatively small amount of money in dispure.

"Rod Speed" wrote in
:

kony wrote


It might be a stupid and short-sighted scheme, but if they
clearly disclosed the hardware requirement prior to or at
the time of purchase, they're off the hook.

Nope.

In spades with Canada where they are very unlikely to bother to show
up in Canada



They have a local presence here.


--
TeGGeR®

TeGGeR® wrote
Rod Speed wrote
kony wrote

It might be a stupid and short-sighted scheme, but if they
clearly disclosed the hardware requirement prior to or at
the time of purchase, they're off the hook.

Nope.

In spades with Canada where they are very
unlikely to bother to show up in Canada

They have a local presence here.

Bet they wont bother to show up in the small claims court
with such a relatively small amount of money involved.

And I bet the small claims court shafts them even if they do.

"Rod Speed" wrote in news:4pvo3gFkmd5vU1
@individual.net:

TeGGeR® wrote
Rod Speed wrote
kony wrote

It might be a stupid and short-sighted scheme, but if they
clearly disclosed the hardware requirement prior to or at
the time of purchase, they're off the hook.

Nope.

In spades with Canada where they are very
unlikely to bother to show up in Canada

They have a local presence here.

Bet they wont bother to show up in the small claims court
with such a relatively small amount of money involved.



What if I personally know the company rep and am friends with him?


--
TeGGeR®

TeGGeR® wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in news:4pvo3gFkmd5vU1
@individual.net:

TeGGeR® wrote
Rod Speed wrote
kony wrote

It might be a stupid and short-sighted scheme, but if they
clearly disclosed the hardware requirement prior to or at
the time of purchase, they're off the hook.

Nope.

In spades with Canada where they are very
unlikely to bother to show up in Canada

They have a local presence here.

Bet they wont bother to show up in the small claims court
with such a relatively small amount of money involved.



What if I personally know the company rep and am friends with him?

Irrelevant.

"TeGGeR®" wrote in message
...
"Rod Speed" wrote in news:4pvo3gFkmd5vU1
@individual.net:

TeGGeR® wrote
Rod Speed wrote
kony wrote

It might be a stupid and short-sighted scheme, but if they
clearly disclosed the hardware requirement prior to or at
the time of purchase, they're off the hook.

Nope.

In spades with Canada where they are very
unlikely to bother to show up in Canada

They have a local presence here.

Bet they wont bother to show up in the small claims court
with such a relatively small amount of money involved.



What if I personally know the company rep and am friends with him?

The bottom line is that if someone purchases software that requires a
dongle, they are IN FAVOUR of that company and it's practices. If you don't
want dongles, don't buy their software!!!

"TeGGeR®" wrote:
SMS wrote in
TeGGeR® wrote:

Did he ever. But I paid well for that: $400 Cdn.

At least I cam claim it as a business expense. And it beats $8,000
for the brand-new version of the program.

Send an invoice for the $400 CDN to the company whose CAD program it
is.

When they refuse to pay, sue them in small claims court in Canada
(do you have that there?).

Yes, we have the same sorts of courts you have in the States, albeit
known by different names.

However, the CAD program maker never guaranteed the program would
work with hardware that might be designed ten years hence, so I
think my case here might be a little thin...

However you have just proved that it does work on modern hardware.
So that is a non-issue.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
http://cbfalconer.home.att.net