Readers had a lot to say about my recent report concerning a woodworking tool vendor that tries to impose usage restrictions on customers via a sneakwrap license agreement.
Many readers pointed out that, in requiring the tool be used in only one shop, the woodworking tool vendor was merely following the example of software usage restrictions. "I suppose it was inevitable this would happen," wrote one reader. "If software ‘tool’ companies can keep me from moving their programs to my new computer, why shouldn’t a real tool manufacturer say it can only be used in one shop? Maybe the absurdity of this situation will help point out to Congress just how badly consumer rights are being eroded by their pandering to special interests."
The jig-making tool’s license requirement that only the one purchaser ever use the tool could also cause problems in a business environment, noted one reader. "So in other words, say we have a shop that is large enough to have a front office. Joe Worker out in the shop says he needs one, so Frank Purchaser goes out and buys the jig. Whoops! Frank Purchaser (being the bloke that actually bought the jig) is now the only one allowed to use it, but lo and behold, Frank is an accountant, not a woodworker. So much for THAT investment ..."
"The software companies and now apparently the woodworking industries are claiming the product is only licensed for my use and I do not own it," mused another reader. "So if I do not own it, who is responsible for disposal of the product when I no longer need or want it? I have a box of old Windows 3.1 software disks and manuals taking up space in my office as I try to figure out what to do with it. Since I do not own it and have only paid for the use of it, should not the responsibility and cost of its disposal belong to its owner, i.e. the software company? Maybe we can put together a grassroots movement to deliver all our old, no-longer-used software products back to the owners."
1:29:11 PM 
|
|
