software warantee exclusions - should things do their job?

[lionelhill]

Whenever I install a new (expensive) piece of commercial software, I always find myself agreeing to some licence declaration including a piece of text along the lines of:
The software company do not offer any warantee with respect to this software being suitable for any particular use or purpose... etc. etc.

Now this strikes me as unfair. If the advertising literature etc. said it would do X for me, and it subsequently can't be used to do X, even though I have exactly the system stated in the system requirements, surely I have a right to feel upset?

Further, am I throwing away my right to get upset by "agreeing" to the agreement? After all, normally I have no way to know that the software is in fact incapable of doing its job until AFTER I've agreed...

How do software producers get away with global statements like this; surely they should offer some promise that the software does what it is advertised to do, and should limit their exclusion to my misunderstandings and extrapolations? This is analogous to a washing machine manufacturer being obliged to give you your money back if his/her machine is incapable of washing clothes. They aren't under any obligation if it breaks when you try to wash a rolled up carpet or a tent.

As a "technical user" these agreements and the disasters I subsequently have with buggy software drive me up the wall. It's particularly infuriating because this sort of thing is most common amongst specialist software that costs many thousands of pounds.

 

[sleipnir214]

EULAs are universal documents. It's impossible to come up with individual documents for every set of local law.

Those things usually have a codicil which reads something like, "You may have other rights which are provided by local law".

Even if it does not, those local laws provide protections which the EULA cannot abrogate. Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[Provogeek]

Here are the reasons as they were explained to me by some software publishers:

1. Once you break the seal on the software, it's yours. No money back and you can only exchange the product for the same thing if there is a media defect. This is because once you open it, how is the publisher to know you didn't dup the crap out of their software? This was a common problem in the US, a little store called Fry's had a fairly easy return policy. People were duping everything and returning it so the software would basicly be free.

2. The software publisher has no control over the enviroment you install their software into. You may have network of PC's with a NetWare backbone, but the software is made for Windows server to use with Mac clients. It's not the manufactures fault you didn't do your homework. See item 1 for the reason you can't get your money back.

3. All software includes a manual of some sort. It would be paper or electronic, and in cases like M$, full of useless info. It is not the software publishers fault that you didn't RTFM or get training on the sotware you were buying.

4. If you find a bug in the software, you still are not entitled to a refund (see item 1 for the reason). You are entitled to free support however. I know that M$ and Novell and Cisco will refund all support costs for an incident if the problem is found to be a bug in the product.

I have not come across any software package that I could not obtain an eval version first. Prolems like yours is the reason these evals are available, asside from the marketing potential the evals have. If you didn't evaluate your product or do some research on it, why is it the publishers fault? I have made the mistake my self a few times, did it with MP3Liquid Burn. I didn't evaluate the product close enough so when I bought it and started to use it I found the software to be a nothing but junk . It was marketed as easy to use, but it was designed for people who like to do things the hard way. I tossed it a side and found somthing else that worked for me, after closly evaluating the product first. See option 1 for why I can't return the MP3 software.

And as sleipnir214 pointed out, local laws do change things. In the US M$ put on a special not to long ago were you cold go to an electronics store to buy anything up to 400 dollars and get a 400 dollar rebate from M$. The catch was you had to sign up for their MSN service for x amount of years. Well, in California there are laws that make this illegal to hold a consumer to such an agrement. M$ still made the mistake of having the special in California. I basicly got a free DVD player, good old Billy bought it for me. The lines for the electronic store the special was offered at had lines out the door. M$ lost millions on this blunder. If the UK passed a law that required software publishers to accept returns, then more than likely you would see a fall in software sales in the UK. It would be either caused by piracy or the publushers would just stop selling their software in the UK.
Brent Schmidt CNE,Network +
Senior Network Engineer

http://www.kiscc.com

 

[lionelhill]

Thanks, both, for insightful replies. Incidentally the sort of software I'm discussing is stuff that controls analytical lab equipment, usually working only in conjunction with the equipment, so we don't have any chance to see it before hand, except possibly as demonstrated by a sales rep in controlled conditions.
Some of the software out there is excelent, and produced by highly creative, inteligent engineers. In fact it's depressingly true that the equipment quite often saves me my job by being cleverer than me and letting me take the credit. But some software is plain naff.

 

[CajunCenturion]

The software company do not offer any warantee with respect to this software being suitable for any particular use or purpose.

The key aspect of this is the work suitable. The software vendor cannot possibly warrant that the software will be a good fit for your situation. Provogeek has already addressed this from hardware standpoint, but there is also the software functionality. If I need an accouting package with multi-company and roll-up capability and the package I buy is single company only, the the software I bought is NOT suitable for my needs. That's not the software vendor's fault, that's my fault for buying the wrong package. The vendor is protecting itself from that situation.

How easy would it be for me to take advantage of that situation. Buy some software that it perfect for my outfit, install it and copy it, find some reason that the software is un-suitable (even tho it doesn't apply), then make that claim against the vendor to get my money back. See Provogeek - item 1.

You can bet that most statements in an EULA are there because that situation cost at lease one vendor some money (or headaches) in the past. Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[svanels]

How many people before they buy something, look on the side of the box at system requirement?. How many people before they install the thing look at the readme file? How many people ask a demonstration of the soft-and hardware? How many people look for references or more information before they buy something. How many people know what they are buying? A lot of people want to buy a "cheap and simple" home computer only to write letters, and the next day they come up with latest pc-game release that is a resource hog.

A friend of mine rented once a VHS video tape, only because it was a live show of Simon and Garfunkel... and tried to stuff it for 15 minutes in his Betamax VCR. Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

 

[qednick]

Hi Lionel, Provogeek has a good point and that is a point which I have been arguing on usenet recently regarding shareware authors giving refunds - this practice is an open invitation to get your products ripped off!

Many years ago, I went to work for a small company which used some very specialized software (cost around 20,000 quid if I recall) - the software was incredibly and thoroughly CRAP - why??? because it was "specialized" and very expensive software!! Not used by the masses - therefore not tested by the masses either! It was obvious that the manual was written by the programmers because you had to be a programmer to understand it! (perhaps that's why I started programming - I can't remember!!).
If you've got some thoroughly expensive and specialized lab software which cost an arm and a leg then I wouldn't be surprised at all to find quite a few bugs in it! However, just like Provogeek said: if you've paid that much for it then you should expect to have the support/expertise to back it up from the software engineers!

^{programmer (prog'ram'er), n A hot-headed, anorak wearing, pimple-faced computer geek.}​