The Daily Wire: Warning! - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1

Warning!

#1 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 09 February 2011 - 03:56 PM

to all. If this happened to me I am convinced that it has, or will, happen to you.
I purchased online a notebook PC some weeks ago. Now I build my own desktop PC so the notebook operation is not that much different than a desktop except the Windows OS. I have Win XP on the dekstop whereas on the notebook I have the newer Windows 7 Home Premium.
Since I got this notebook I have not been able to use it due to some 'faults' the major one being that it refuses to save the "settings"...you know the "user name" and 'password' which my ISP issued for internet use. Without these I am unable to use the internet. The manufacturer has 'after sales' assistance where I contacted them numerous times and each time they agreed with me that there may be a corrupt registry file . So many times I used the "recovery mode". It works for a while (a couple of times) but then it's back to the same fault.I tried many things myself...like uninstalling programs which I installed (in case of conflict)..restarting etc. Same fault. I even tried a different "user name" as an administrator..no cigar. I asked the manufacturer whether "recovery" does really install registry files and it said that it does. I am suspecting now that there may be a virus in the notebook and "recovery mode" will not get rid of it. The notebook has Norton Anti Virus software but nothing is a 100%. From experience of my desktop the ONLY sure way to get rid of viruses is to format the hard drive and then re-install Windows. Obviously where I can do this on my desktop (I have the Win XP OS disk) I cannot do this on the notebook as I do not have the Win7 OS disk. I do not think that "recovery " is the same as formatting and re-installing Win OS.
In any case a few days ago (just approx two months into warranty) I contacted the retailer to claim a warranty repair/refund.Amazingly this retailer who is quite reputable ( I am not revealing the names of both for obvious reasons) immediately referred me to the manufacturer where quote "it will pick it up for service"end quote. When I contacted the manufacturer it demanded a service charge (for repair) of 60 dollars an hour. When I emphasised that it is still under warranty, the manufacturer claimed that in the agreement between myself and it this software fault is not covered under warranty. "I should have read the agreement more carefully prior to purchasing the product"end quote I requested to speak to someone in management about the issue in order to explain. When the manager came on the phone who by the way concurred with the first person on this warranty issue I explained that his corporation is either employing inept legal advisors or they are trying to pull a fast one ( I suspect the latter). I emphasised that an "agreement" between a corporation/manufacturer and a consumer is null and void. It simply does not exist. All these EUA (end of user agreements which you note on software prior to installing "I accept" " "I do not accept") issued by corporations like Microsoft are not worth the paper they are written on and frankly I cannot fathom how corporations can waste valuable resources in printing these sort of useless tripe ( I suspect once again to "bluff" the general population). The manager refused to believe what I was saying.
In any case I, as the consumer, (whether that manager believes me or not) under law can ONLY deal with the retailer who is responsible. The result ...see letter under:
7 February 2011
The Manager

RE: CONSUMER PROBLEM

Dear Sir/Madam,
On or about 25/12/10 the writer purchased, online, from your store a ......... notebook for 509 dollars. It was delivered to the writer some time after the New Years Day.
Since it's delivery ( nearly eight weeks ago) the writer has experienced problems with the product to the extent that it was not able to be used. Numerous calls to ........ warranty/technical support failed to resolve the issue.
On or about the 6/2/11 the writer contacted .......... Store at ............. requesting assistance in perhaps a refund of the cost of the product or repair which is the usual procedure under warranty. The store told him that he has to deal directly with .........When the writer contacted ......... it required a service charge for the repair even though the product is only 2 months into warranty. It citied an agreement which ....... claimed the writer should have read before he purchased the product.
The writer wishes to remind you that under State of NSW consumer laws, the retailer, not the manufacturer has the responsibility to provide to the consumer a product which must be functioning as it is claimed and intended. The writer as a consumer has absolutely no obligation towards ........ and your store as the retailer has the responsibility to resolve this to the writer's satisfaction.
The writer shall wait for a resolution of this matter. However failure to reach this resolution will incite the writer in complaining to the Department of Fair Trading/Consumer Tenancy & Trader Tribunal. Please note that the writer is only in receipt of an Aged Pension from Centrelink and as you will surely understand the price of the product would be too high (as compared to a pension) for him to waste on a product which does not function.

Yours Sincerely
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#2 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 10 February 2011 - 06:43 AM

Good for you, Mate. Keep us posted.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#3 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 10 February 2011 - 10:08 AM

Hi HDMC. I have to add everybody...that we as consumers have absolutely no obligation towards any corporation/manufacturer even if you sign a million agreements with them. You can use them as toilet paper because that is what they are good for as they are unenforceable in any court of law because state consumer laws take precedence! We are protected by consumer laws and they prevail. Our "agreement" is with the retailer...or it is with us whichever way you deem it. So for example I purchased a Windows XP OS disk from a retailer...Microsoft(the manufacturer)unnecessarily makes you go through a gauntlet in order to prevent piracy etc.Now if the disk is faulty I do NOT contact Microsoft but the retailer from where I purchased it.If I am infringing copyright the laws...this is not Microsoft's business....it is the business of law enforcement agencies and ONLY them. That is what they are there for to enforce anti-piracy/copyright laws Frankly I find this practice where corporations start acting like this bordering on the vigilante and I cannot understand why governments permit this to occur.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#4 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 15 February 2011 - 08:24 AM

Well this matter has now gone to Fair Trading/CTTT. I do not like "cloak & dagger" bullshit! If you have something to say to me...just say it and I'll respond.In fact "cloak & dagger" bullshit has never and will never work with me. This matter was going this way and I sorta discreetly pushed and the store contacted me by phone. It refused to come to the party and when I asked "well then I'll have to pursue the matter via the Fair Trading/CTTT system..it responded quote "go ahead we do not care". So if they do not care...why should I.
This bullshit reminds me of when I decided to renounce my Maltese nationality although I was born there. Back in 2005 when I renounced and just prior to doing so I canvassed a scenario on whether any Maltese cares when one of their own renounces. No one did. When I applied in Malta (there was a procedure) the Minister for Foreign Affairs Tonio Borg signed the renunciation certificate. His department (of Expatriates) did not object. No one raised any objection where in fact the Minister showed by simply assenting to the renunciation (in the absence of any objection) that the Maltese Government does not care whether it loses one of their own. So I said..."stuff this..if they do not care why should I"? To this day I am not sorry I followed this course. In both instances I did not lose any 'skin off my nose". These things do not work with me. I am not a fervent patriot and emotional bullshit does not work with me as well
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#5 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 04 March 2011 - 05:45 PM

View Postdumbcluck, on 09 February 2011 - 03:56 PM, said:

Since I got this notebook I have not been able to use it due to some 'faults' the major one being that it refuses to save the "settings"...you know the "user name" and 'password' which my ISP issued for internet use. Without these I am unable to use the internet.


So you have some minor software problems with your new PC compounded by an inability to remember or record your login, and expect the retailer to sort out all and any such software and memory problems. Give me a break!!!!

Still, if you whinge and rant enough, who knows, occasionally the squeakiest wheel will get some grease.

While you're waiting to get greased, try restoring the system to factory state using the designated manufacturer's method (I figure that's not the recovery to which you referred).

View Postdumbcluck, on 10 February 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

If I am infringing copyright the laws...this is not Microsoft's business....it is the business of law enforcement agencies and ONLY them. That is what they are there for to enforce anti-piracy/copyright laws


Try looking up what an "Anton Piller order" is about and you will realise that Microsoft have some teeth, along with a track record of occasionally biting.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#6 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 05 March 2011 - 09:22 AM

I do not think that you get it. State laws prevail! No corporation, no individual, no religious organisation, no political group prevail OVER State laws....aka laws which are passed by State/Federal Parliaments. This means ANY agreements with ANY of those groups MUST comply with those State laws or they are null and void. So it is not worth Microsoft coming along and saying to us consumers "You must sign this agreement with us". We can sign a million agreements with Microsoft...BUT if those agreements do not in any way COMPLY with those State laws...then they are null and void as they are unenforceable in any court. Why? because once the court determines that these agreements do not comply with those State laws....the case will be thrown out of court. Now for copyright/royalties etc. The Federal/State Governments employs specialised law enforcement people to seek and prosecute offenders re: copyright/royalities violations. It is their job to do this. It is NOT the job of Microsoft or any other corporation to seek offenders,insure, or in any way harass it's customers in order to follow copyright/royalties laws.I view this as infringing on the job of those law enforcement agencies and I say ..to each his own!
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#7 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 05 March 2011 - 11:49 AM

View Postdumbcluck, on 05 March 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

I do not think that you get it. State laws prevail! No corporation, no individual, no religious organisation, no political group prevail OVER State laws....aka laws which are passed by State/Federal Parliaments. This means ANY agreements with ANY of those groups MUST comply with those State laws or they are null and void. So it is not worth Microsoft coming along and saying to us consumers "You must sign this agreement with us". We can sign a million agreements with Microsoft...BUT if those agreements do not in any way COMPLY with those State laws...then they are null and void as they are unenforceable in any court. Why? because once the court determines that these agreements do not comply with those State laws....the case will be thrown out of court.


Exactly what aspect of which agreement have you found conflicting with local, state or federal laws? And did it break your 'puter?

View Postdumbcluck, on 05 March 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

The Federal/State Governments employs specialised law enforcement people to seek and prosecute offenders re: copyright/royalities violations. It is their job to do this. It is NOT the job of Microsoft or any other corporation to seek offenders,insure, or in any way harass it's customers in order to follow copyright/royalties laws.I view this as infringing on the job of those law enforcement agencies and I say ..to each his own!


There may well be public servants who can do the job, just as a policeman on the spot might stop a burglar breaking into my house. Does not mean I'm not entitled to guard and protect my possessions, or defend my rights for my own sake.

Similarly, Microsoft et al have independently, actively and indeed legally gathered evidence and used it against those who would infringe copyright. Sometimes settled out of court, but plenty of times settled (in Microsoft's favour) before the court. That's Microsoft looking after it's own turf when law enforcement may have other things to do.

Was it in fact the evil Microsoft empire who did broke your 'puter?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#8 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 05 March 2011 - 10:53 PM

You are confusing the issues here. This matter is solely dealing with consumer laws which has nothing to do with Microsoft or any other corporation/business. The issue is simply between me and the retailer.
About the entitlement of Microsoft in quote "gathering evidence " to protect their possessions...this is pure "vigilanteeism" as I said. Microsoft or any other corporation or business or even individuals cannot legally gather evidence or investigate a criminal matter. There are law enforcement agencies to do that and they must do it legally "e.g. search warrants etc)For example Microsoft cannot go to the judiciary and request a search warrant to "investigate' or "gather evidence" because firstly it would be the act of a vigilante. Secondly it would be illegal and thirdly the judiciary would not accommodate it.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#9 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 05 March 2011 - 10:53 PM

You are confusing the issues here. This matter is solely dealing with consumer laws which has nothing to do with Microsoft or any other corporation/business. The issue is simply between me and the retailer.
About the entitlement of Microsoft in quote "gathering evidence " to protect their possessions...this is pure "vigilanteeism" as I said. Microsoft or any other corporation or business or even individuals cannot legally gather evidence or investigate a criminal matter. There are law enforcement agencies to do that and they must do it legally "e.g. search warrants etc)For example Microsoft cannot go to the judiciary and request a search warrant to "investigate' or "gather evidence" because firstly it would be the act of a vigilante. Secondly it would be illegal and thirdly the judiciary would not accommodate it.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#10 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 06 March 2011 - 01:54 AM

From your initial post:

Quote

All these EUA (end of user agreements which you note on software prior to installing "I accept" " "I do not accept") issued by corporations like Microsoft are not worth the paper they are written on and frankly I cannot fathom how corporations can waste valuable resources in printing these sort of useless tripe ( I suspect once again to "bluff" the general population).


Quote

You are confusing the issues here. This matter is solely dealing with consumer laws which has nothing to do with Microsoft or any other corporation/business. The issue is simply between me and the retailer.


You mentioned Microsoft, and continue to do so.

Quote

About the entitlement of Microsoft in quote "gathering evidence " to protect their possessions...this is pure "vigilanteeism"


So you did not look up "Anton Pillar order" as previously suggested.

OK. Up to you bete noire. Have fun.

CYA!
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#11 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 06 March 2011 - 09:21 AM

Alright Icey I'll look up that particular case but only to please you. If in that case the "accused" was found guilty then (and this is why I had not looked that case up) the court had found that state law must have been violated. this is the point I was trying to make irrespective of any specific case. I was talking in general terms. You see agreements or contracts (and this includes wills) of any sort whether between companies or individuals MUST comply with state laws.If those agreements do not then they become null and void. A simple example is the following:
Say you Icey and I Dumbcluck decide to rob a bank. However prior to doing so we make out a written agreement or contract which states that any proceeds from bank robberies must be equally divided 50/50.
This agreement is not worth the paper it is written on simply because it does not COMPLY with state law.Where you may say? Well because state law prohibits the robbing of banks where in fact it is considered a crime. The agreement therefore is unenforceable.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#12 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 06 March 2011 - 09:37 AM

Well Icey I just this minute looked up this "Anton Pillar" order. It is a 'search warrant" of sorts which the plaintiff can apply for in the form of a court order (note that a court must issue it) and the following must be the conditions:
Because such an order is essentially unfair to the accused party, Anton Piller orders are only issued exceptionally and according to the three-step test set out by Ormrod LJ in the Anton Piller case:

1. There is an extremely strong prima facie case against the respondent,
2. The damage, potential or actual, must be very serious for the applicant, and
3. There must be clear evidence that the respondents have in their possession relevant documents or things and that there is a real possibility that they may destroy such material before an inter partes application can be made.
So it is not that easy for a plaintiff to be granted it. In fact included in this article which I obtained from wiki free online encyclopedia (I googled the search) was the fact that these kind of orders have DECREASED ten fold over a number of years
So my point is proved. If a corporation (plaintiff) insists on issuing this order it must first seek court approval
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#13 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 06 March 2011 - 05:59 PM

You're a laugh bete noire, changing the goal posts and confusing the issues.

OK, an Anton Pillar order may not be easily come by for mere mortals like you or I.

Quote

Microsoft or any other corporation or business or even individuals cannot legally gather evidence or investigate a criminal matter.


You forgot the requisite qualification and should have said:

"Microsoft or any other corporation or business or even individuals cannot legally gather evidence or investigate a criminal matter without jumping through some hoops."

View Postdumbcluck, on 06 March 2011 - 09:37 AM, said:

So my point is proved ?????


Missed it, sorry :)
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#14 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 07 March 2011 - 08:20 AM

I can see legal issues are being confused here. You have to distinguish here between civil and criminal matters. This "Anton Pillar" order is for use in civil matters obviously. It said (on the WIKI encyclopedia)that this is done at the request of the "plaintiff". The plaintiff cannot request 'search warrants' (as distinct from "discovery warrants) in criminal matters ONLY law enforcement can...so this must be a civil suit request and it has to be approved by a court of law.Civil suites are notorously difficult to win....I would never go to a solicitor to initiate a civil suit simply because s/he will can only give you three answers..not the most important fourth answer. S/he can tell you that 1) you have no case 2) you have a chance of winning the case 3) you have an excellent chance of winning the case....but the most important answer of all....you will never get ..and this is I'll GUARANTEE we will win the case"
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1


Fast Reply