Forum Moderators: open
"If you dispute a charge to your credit card issuer that, at our sole discretion is a valid charge under the provisions of this Agreement and/or AUP, you agree to pay us an "Investigation Fee" of $100.00."
Are they having a laugh or do the card issuers really let them get away with clauses like that?
It goes against the whole point of the credit card chargeback principle in the first place, doesn't it?
Just kidding.... or am I?
lawman
If you believe that your website deserves a higher Google ranking, than it has actually achieved, after we SEOd it, then we will charge an investigation fee of...
I recall reading the story at work that day, clicking thru to Microsoft's site and actually reading the below terms of use I've cut and pasted from archive.org below for your convienience (which you can also read at the archive.org link below for reference), and then checking latter that same day and finding Microsoft had changed the terms of service, taking out the egregious (IMO) terms. It didn't take them long after the slashdot story came out either!
Note in the slashdot story the connection between Microsoft's passport and people's hotmail e-mail accounts. Keep in mind the pages you get to now by clicking the links in the slashdot story below have changed since the story was posted in April of 2001. That's why I included the archive.org link below so you can see what the terms of use were prior to the April 2001 slashdot story being published.
Enjoy (if that's the right word):
[web.archive.org...]
discussed here
[theregister.co.uk...]
and here
[yro.slashdot.org...]
The actual snippet all the furor was about, cut and pasted from the above archive.org link:
<cut and paste from the above archive.org link>
<SNIP - see the "Licence to Microsoft" section of the page at the archive.org link>
Now that's what I call "innovation", Microsoft style, when it comes to respect for intellectual property...at least when you have a headcount of several hundred in your legal department and lots of money in the bank.
FWIW,
Midwestguy
[edited by: lawman at 7:51 am (utc) on Oct. 17, 2003]
[edit reason] TOS 10 [/edit]
They said that line does not mean anything and you can sue them.
Generally speaking, exculpatory clauses are void as against public policy. Check with an attorney in your state.
You can sue over anything, even something that's legal
Many states have sanctions for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. Without legitimate grounds for filing suit, no lawyer in his right mind would expose himself to such sanctions.
lawman
Until judges start understanding more of how the net works, this will continue to be a problem as they are applying patent and trademark laws (and giving patents to some things that shouldn't be allowed IMO) to a society based on the net that were written when the idea of the net didn't even exist.
The trustworthiness of unsolicited legal commentary is ambiguous. Everyone should understand that the validity of such commentary rests upon knowledge, experience, and reputation of its proponent.
Specific legal commentary:
See above. In addition, specific legal commentary will be carefully scrutinized and might be edited or deleted.
Legal advice:
Is inappropriate in this forum and will be deleted.
lawman
First of course is whatever weight one gives to the legal and economic threat of having one's intellectual property taken and used without pay by a company such as Microsoft via such terms of use. At least considering they have comparatively infinitely more resources to legally bully people who might challenge such terms in court.
Secondly and more importantly to me is what such terms say about the character of any company who would write such terms and boldly try to foist such claims onto customers (and their property) who use their passport/hotmail email service.
To me life is too short and I'm too old to voluntarily have anything more to do with people or companies that I feel I need to constantly keep on guard against being screwed over by than I absolutely have to.
Why do business with people who boldly reveal they are out to take you for as much as they can get a way with. Value for value people are much more to my liking -- and what I read didn't say there was any value for value when it comes to the character of the company who wrote those "terms of use".
One last point. Many "agreements" we accept online have clauses stating they may change from time to time, that continued use is dependent on acceptence of such changes, and that it's the user's responsibility to check for such changes.
Without addressing the legal merits of such claims, who wants to deal with a company you feel would be likely to try and slip some garbage terms by you that you would never agree to up front, but that you might not notice latter...and then have to deal with them trying to screw you over via such revised terms? EULA revisions that come with critical security patches to Windows, anyone?
Not me. Guess it's time to learn more about *nix this weekend.
Take care,
Midwestguy
