kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (10/31/88)
In article <1036@fai.UUCP> dalea@fai.UUCP (Dale M. Arends) writes: >Here is an interesting situation. When I purchased my hard disk from >Jasmine, it came with the Symantec Utilities for the Macintosh (SUM) >on it. This was not a surprise since they advertise the fact. However, >according to Symantec, that does NOT make me a valid user/owner of the >software and, thus, cannot be a registered owner unless I purchase >another copy of the package. > >Dale If this is true, then Jasmine's ads are certainly misleading. I would expect to have to pay for the shareware I decided to keep and use, but I wouldn't have expected that for the commercial software. The ad should indicate that this is a trial copy. The availability of SUM (for free) is enough to swing a purchase decision, where other factors are somewhat equal. If you're not registered and entitled to upgrade prices, it's still bootleg as far as I'm concerned. Other disk drive manufacturers ought to take up a truth in advertising claim against Jasmine, or at least make references to misleading ads in their own ad copy. Shirley Kehr
atf@arp (Andre Fuhrmann) (11/02/88)
In article <1036@fai.UUCP>, dalea@fai.UUCP (Dale M. Arends) writes: > Here is an interesting situation. When I purchased my hard disk from > Jasmine, it came with the Symantec Utilities for the Macintosh (SUM) > on it. This was not a surprise since they advertise the fact. However, > according to Symantec, that does NOT make me a valid user/owner of the > software and, thus, cannot be a registered owner unless I purchase > another copy of the package. > > The situation then arises concerning upgrades and technical support. > In short, unless they are distributed via public facilities (Usenet, > CI$, Genie, etc.) I am not notified nor eligible to receive them. > > I can understand the situation, but I have a hard time justifying my > having to pay for a second copy of software I obtained legally in the > first place simply to be allowed to get support and upgrade notices. Same here. But in contrast to Dale, I can't understand the situation -- I'm downright ANGRY. I bought my Jasmine HD partly because SUM (and more) was bundled with it. Of course, I gathered from their advertisements that by buying the HD, I would become a licensed user of the SUM package. As it turns out, Jasmine's advertisements are *grossly misleading*, to say the very least. How I found out? Well, two floppies came together with the HD. After cursory inspection, I assumed that they contained the Jasmine Drive Tools and SUM. Thus, when I reformatted the HD, I made no backup of SUM since I thought I already had one. Only after reformatting I realised that I had only a *partial* copy of SUM: the Symantec Tools were only on the HD, not on one of the two floppies that came with it. When I rang the Australian distributor of SUM and Jasmine, Symbiotics in Melbourne, they didn't categorically refuse to replace the inadvertently trashed piece of SUM but they made a very strange offer: I should send in my HD and pay $65 and then they would copy the missing Tools onto my HD. Apart from the fact that my HD is on the way to Germany, I would have said "No, thanks(?)" anyway. I have no complaints about my Jasmine HD so far - it works fine. But I don't like to buy from people who fool their customers. In the future I'll look at Jasmine's offers with a good portion of distrust: they'll have to do a bit more than the ordinary to convince me that I should buy another of their products. By the way, anyone out there who feels an urge to send me the Symantec Tools component of SUM? (I still feel bloody well entitled to them.) Andre Fuhrmann Automated Reasoning Project, Australian National University, GPO Box 4, ACT 2601, Australia. atf@arp.anu.oz.au
dalea@fai.UUCP (Dale M. Arends) (11/03/88)
In addition to this newsgroup, I cross posted my question to misc.legal.
Several persons, including one lawyer, responded. The general thread of
responses were as follows:
The assumptions were that since the software was a commercial product that
was being distributed on a hard disk from a different manufacturer, the
support responsibility is determined by the granted distribution license.
In general, the most frequently encountered scenario is that the party
that is granted the license takes on the onus of support. Any situation
that they cannot directly handle should be refered, by them, to the
licensor and, once the answer is received, the licensee should then
respond to the purchaser (me).
These are the general terms. Some companies prefer to maintain their own
support and write the distribution licenses to reflect that; usually at
a higher license cost to the licensee. Should the grantor of the license
find that the licensee is failing to maintain support to the extent that
the reputation of the licensor is damaged, the license may be revoked and,
unless prohibited in the license, legal action taken.
So, in my case, Jasmine apparently is supposed to maintain the support
functions for the SUM package distributed on their disks.
Thanks to those who responded.
Dale
--
Dale M. Arends (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.)
dalea@fai.com
dalea@fai.UUCP
{amdahl, pyramid, sun, unisoft, uunet}!fai!dalea
The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
They are entirely my own if they make sense and I disavow them if they don't.richw@turner.UUCP (Richard Wilkes) (11/09/88)
-- Line Eater -- -- Line Eater -- -- Line Eater -- -- Line Eater -- -- Line Eater -- -- Line Eater -- From article <607@arp.anu.oz>, by atf@arp (Andre Fuhrmann): > In article <1036@fai.UUCP>, dalea@fai.UUCP (Dale M. Arends) writes: >> Here is an interesting situation. When I purchased my hard disk from >> Jasmine, it came with the Symantec Utilities for the Macintosh (SUM) >> on it. This was not a surprise since they advertise the fact. However, >> according to Symantec, that does NOT make me a valid user/owner of the >> software and, thus, cannot be a registered owner unless I purchase >> another copy of the package. > How I found out? Well, two floppies came together with the HD. After > cursory inspection, I assumed that they contained the Jasmine Drive > Tools and SUM. Thus, when I reformatted the HD, I made no backup of > SUM since I thought I already had one. Only after reformatting I > realised that I had only a *partial* copy of SUM: the Symantec Tools > were only on the HD, not on one of the two floppies that came with it. My problem exactly! I thought it was perfectly reasonable to assume that the SUM distribution disks I got were the "real thing"...however, I'm now missing Symantec Tools because I didn't back SUM up off of the HD. > By the way, anyone out there who feels an urge to send me the Symantec > Tools component of SUM? (I still feel bloody well entitled to them.) > > Andre Fuhrmann > Automated Reasoning Project, Australian National University, > GPO Box 4, ACT 2601, Australia. atf@arp.anu.oz.au I would appreciate a copy as well -- after all, we did pay for it... Thanks! Richard Wilkes -- Richard Wilkes Whaddya mean, ya don't need it now?? Analog Design Tools Sunnyvale, California 94086 ...{sun!sunncal,hplabs}!analog!richw ----------------------------------------------------------------------