Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Printer United States News

Lexmark's DMCA-Abuse Case Coming To An End 431

Posted by timothy
from the pfui-on-them dept.
Adama writes "Lexmark is dead in the water with their hopes to use the DMCA to force their customers to buy their over-priced toner. Their request for another hearing has been denied. Ars has an especially great write-up on this." (See this earlier story for more background on Lexmark's lock-in attempt.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lexmark's DMCA-Abuse Case Coming To An End

Comments Filter:
  • Hopefully... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by InsideTheAsylum (836659) on Monday February 21, 2005 @07:23PM (#11740037)
    The DMCA is shot down in the court in other copyright related matters.

    I know, I know, downloading music isn't quite like manufacturing your own cartridge for another company's printer, but at least this proves that the DMCA can't shield everything.
  • by swschrad (312009) on Monday February 21, 2005 @07:23PM (#11740040) Homepage Journal
    have recommended AGAINST lexmark products for several years based on their tin-star-sheriff use of the DMCA to support triple-priced magic dust in their printer supplies.

    bet I'm not the only one.

    DMCA = no fans.
  • Really though (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheKidWho (705796) on Monday February 21, 2005 @07:25PM (#11740058)
    They need to come up with a new business model other then "lets sell real cheap printers only 1/4 filled with ink, and lets sell ink for $8000 a gallon!" The free market is showing that the people dont like the business plan so they better adopt a new one. If the government interferes here, then it just imposing another form of regulations on the market which never does it good.
  • Ripoff Pricing.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by CCelebornn (829849) on Monday February 21, 2005 @07:33PM (#11740122)
    I don't know how their prices are in the US, but it's terrible here in the UK. In fact, it is actually cheaper to buy a brand new printer with 2 brand new cartridges already in it than to just buy replacement cartridges for your existing one. It's an absolute disgrace. And then they release half priced ones with only half the tank filled, which STILL come out more expensive than all the other brands. I campaign a lot around the friends and familty to NOT BUY LEXMARK. They're all "well, it's so cheap" and "well I won't use it that much so cartridge prices don't matter". And thats the market they aim at :/
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 21, 2005 @07:35PM (#11740131)
    The initial price of printers will increase, and the corresponding cost of cartridges will decrease. This is a good outcome; the razor-markup model has always been a bit dishonest. Now price and cost will be more closely aligned, so partially-informed consumers will be able to make better purchasing decisions.

    It's better for the manufacturers too, because their competition won't be doing it either. They no longer need to "keep up with the Joneses" and engage in shady pricing.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 21, 2005 @07:37PM (#11740142)
    It would be interesting to know which has cost Lexmark more:

    1. Loss of potential future revenue because competitors will now be able to sell replacement cartridges
    2. The cost of paying the lawyers for the case, or
    3. Loss of revenue because of the many people recommending against Lexmark printers ever since the lawsuit began (regardless of outcome).

    I'm betting #3, and that the effect will persist for years from now. I, like you, will not buy Lexmark printers anymore, and have not for several years. I recommend against them when ever people ask, and I explain to them why. Yes, other printer companies gouge you for printer supplies too, but Lexmark has achieved unusual lows by attempting to apply the DCMA to sustain their anti-competitive desires.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 21, 2005 @07:37PM (#11740145)
    Yes, if we keep this up then the planet will be free of trees by the end of the century.

    Except that the value of trees will increase very quickly once they become scarce. That's how economics works. There are a number of problems caused by deforestation beyond the easily-dismissed "We'll run out of trees!" argument. Sadly, with rationale like this being associated to essentially good ideas, it's going to be difficult to convince anyone who really needs convincing.
  • Re:Real simple.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by winkydink (650484) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Monday February 21, 2005 @07:38PM (#11740151) Homepage Journal
    OK. I keep the original ink carts (or buy a single set of replacement ones)that come with my printer and replace them with el-cheapos. My printer breaks and I send it back with the mfg's ink. Prove I voided my warranty.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 21, 2005 @07:39PM (#11740164)
    What happened to the old days when the customer was king and great customer service was the way to do business?

    9/11. The best thing that ever happened to big business and governments across the world looking to enforce nasty draconian rules of service.
  • by kenthorvath (225950) on Monday February 21, 2005 @07:40PM (#11740167)
    , the 6th Circuit US Court of Appeals found that the Toner Loading Program was not a copyrightable work, as it was less a work of expression than of function. Copyright is not available merely to "any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery," but Lexmark's use falls exclusively on the idea side of the fence. "[I]nteroperable devices" may use proprietary security systems to lock out unauthorized interoperability, but a technology developed solely for this functional purpose is not copyrightable. Furthermore, the court noted that even if these programs were copyrightable, SCC's copying of protected portions of the work would likely still enjoy fair use protections, because the courts have ruled that "fair use doctrine preserves public access to the ideas and functional elements embedded in copyrighted computer software programs."

    Does anyone know what the status of the DeCSS lawsuits are, and whether this applies? I would also love to see this applied to other things.

    But wouldn't this have other implications as well? The notion that a work that is designed merely as a means to function is not copyrightable may have implications for the GPL, would it not? How much code is copyrighted and protected under the GPL that was designed only with function in mind, and nothing else?

    What about the code that SCO claims ownership of? Even if it existed, could they in fact have copyright over it, given this ruling?

  • by kidgenius (704962) on Monday February 21, 2005 @07:40PM (#11740170)
    The problem is that I would rather pay more for the hardware, and less for the consumables. Instead of trying to sell me a cheap printer and recover their costs in ink, charge me a lot for a printer, and give me cheaper ink.
  • by AstroDrabb (534369) on Monday February 21, 2005 @07:43PM (#11740182)
    Actually this is why I personally stopped buying Lexmark. Prior to this, I had three Lexmark printers. When it came time to replace, I went with an HP. Oh, I also picked HP because they have very good Linux support and Lexmark's Linux support sucks or is non-existent.

    Sadly, I don't think the average Joe cares about being screwed over. They have been brain-washed to look for rock-bottom prices. If Lexmark can find a way to sell a similar printer to the competitors for $2 - $5 less, most US drone-shoppers will eat it up.

  • by Lisandro (799651) on Monday February 21, 2005 @07:43PM (#11740183)
    I can atleast understand if Gillete want to defend themselves, as techically the razor is the hardest part to manufacture. The grip is just plastic. And even then, i gladly pay the replacements for my Mach3 becasue it's the better shave experience you can get.

    Ink though, is basically water with pigments. They sell you half filled tanks (seriously, i've opened a few Epson and Lexmark ones) for outrageous prices, and actually try to stop the sale of third party ink cartigades, which in my experience work just as better as the "serious" ones. They are insane - stop selling printers for $80 and try a new buisness model.

    As for printing less, i do that. I print whatever i need on a trusty Laserjet (whose toner doesn't seem to want to give up), which is usually a few pages a month.
  • by gstoddart (321705) on Monday February 21, 2005 @07:43PM (#11740185) Homepage
    Gillette has been doing what the whole printer industry is doing with Razors for YEARS: Give the tool away cheap or for free and charge high for the blades.


    Well, I guess that depends entirely on wether or not someone can legally make plugin-compatible razor blades that can be used in the Gillette handles.

    If someone can legally make a razor blade that works with a Gillette razor and you can buy them, then your analogy falls apart very quickly.

    If, however, Gillette has used a copyright law to prevent people from making razor blades which will work in a Gillette razor, then your analogy is good.

    Which is correct? I honestly don't know, I don't recall checking for generic blades to go into a Gillette razor. But like I said, unless they've barred someone from making a compatible blade, saying the razor industry has done this exact thing may not be accurate.

    Cheers
  • by ShatteredDream (636520) on Monday February 21, 2005 @07:45PM (#11740197) Homepage
    I got sick and tired of having to pay so much for cartridges because I am still a college student and printing out even 50 pages worth of lecture notes and slides can take out around 1/8 of many of those carts. So I paid $150 for a Brother laser printer and it took me 1.5 school years to go through 1 single toner cartridge. Amazing isn't it?

    The scary part is that I tell people about this, how all they have to do is sacrifice color and they can go at least 1 school year without paying $20-$30 per cartridge. For my HL-1440, not exactly a high end piece of equipment, a new toner cart costs only $70.00. Even if it were $100.00 it would still be worth the cost. What does it say about America that these college kids, many of whom do in fact have to pay for their own supplies can't be bothered to put down $140-$200 now for a new laser printer so that they can save 3-5x that in at least 1 fulltime school year of printing?

    Having had this now for going on 2 years and it still works well, I just don't understand why people who don't NEED color printers opt for the much more expensive inkjet. Most printing is black and white and you can save hundreds of dollars, enough to buy your laser printer several times over, if you get the right model because the toner cartridge it comes with can do at least a few thousand pages. I know I got at around 4,000-5,000 pages out of my first toner cartridge.
  • by Phil Urich (841393) on Monday February 21, 2005 @07:46PM (#11740200) Journal
    You really can't defend such a blanket statement such as "just imposing another form of regulations on the market...never does it good". The industries in North America are regulated to hell, whether you realize it or not, but curiously, they haven't gone to hell . . . thing about the free market, it often encourages people and companies to benefit in the short term at the expense of others and of the long term (if you don't, you're beaten out by those who do). Just as laws are vital for our society at large to actually function, so too are some degree of regulations on the marketplace (especially nowadays, when it's far more than a traditional marketplace in literal meaning).
  • by blueZhift (652272) on Monday February 21, 2005 @07:49PM (#11740218) Homepage Journal
    Heh! It doesn't matter because knock-offs from China are going to get into the supply stream no matter what! So legal or not, cheap replacement cartridges are here to stay. In the end, if Lexmark and others want to win, they need to do it the old fashioned way with a quality product rather than product lock in. I actually gave up on Lexmark a couple of years ago because ink was too expensive and refilled or remanufactured cartridges were too unreliable. I ended up buying an HP color printer (a very loud 2500L) which for me at least is cheaper to operate than the Lexmark it replaced. Granted, I still need to deal with quality issues when I hunt for replacement cartridges, but at least I don't have to do it so often and at what I considered to be too high a cost.
  • by v1 (525388) on Monday February 21, 2005 @07:54PM (#11740254) Homepage Journal
    What's unfortunate about this is Lexmark plays the 'Razor Blade Game', a business model where you "don't make money selling razors - give the razors away. Make your money selling BLADES". Lexmark goes by this business model, selling dirt cheap printers. Not just inkjets - they also make laser printers. And then charge a small fortune for the ink or toner, and give you very little of it in each cart. One salesman I know used to joke that "you get more ink in a ballpoint pen than comes with a Lexmark printer". This business model turns sour when your competition (easily) undercuts your (inflated) ink cart prices. The trajedy of this is the consumer usually realizes they are not getting nearly the deal they thought they were until after they've plunked down the money for the printer and their first few replacement ink carts. At that point you have to ask yourself if it's really worth it to chuck your new printer and go buy another one just to "save a few bucks on ink". But then over time those bucks add up easily to more than the price of a new HP or Epson printer.

    I'm quite relieved that the DMCA has not proven to assist them in their consumer-lock-in attempts.
  • by Eric Giguere (42863) on Monday February 21, 2005 @08:05PM (#11740313) Homepage Journal

    I suspect a lot of people use Lexmark printers because they came for "free" with their computer systems, and they feel obligated to use it instead of going out and buying a competitor's printer. That's the real loss-leader there, I think...

    Eric
    JavaScript is NOT Java [ericgiguere.com]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 21, 2005 @08:12PM (#11740348)
    No, that's how textbook economics works. Reality is often very different.
    Check out what happened on Easter Island [primitivism.com], with their "we'll cut back on consumption next year" attitude...
  • by kenthorvath (225950) on Monday February 21, 2005 @08:13PM (#11740358)
    The initial price of printers will increase, and the corresponding cost of cartridges will decrease.

    My prediction: things will stay the same. This isn't about maximizing profit - at least not to the extent that Lexmark would have you believe. It's about control. Big business would love to have ultimate control over its products. That's why you see the RIAA et al. trying to crush P2P when signs point to the fact that P2P actually increases their business. There seems to be a fallacy that control=profit.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 21, 2005 @08:18PM (#11740384)
    Yeah, if it's not used for paper, it'll be used for timber. Or apples. That'll result in fewer trees for sure. Well, except apple trees never really get cut down like paper trees and timber trees. What was your point again? You think they'll just pave the tree farm and turn it into a WalMart? Have you BEEN to a tree farm? If the land was valuable enough to use for a WalMart, it would be a WalMart. It's a tree farm because it's in the middle of nowhere, and trees are the only crop you can plant, disappear for ten years, and then harvest. Other land uses require you have people there, at least semi-frequently.

    The fact that we even USE trees for paper is tragic. The things take decades to mature, and perfectly serviceable paper can be obtained from other plants that grow fast enough to be harvested ANNUALLY. No more clearcutting your nursery and waiting a decade or so. Land that's productive and harvested EVERY YEAR -- imagine that!

    I don't disagree that cutting down trees is useful. It's the only way to get wood. Not all tree parts can be used for wood, so you have some room for by-products too. But seriously--who needs to wipe their ass with a freshly-chopped tree? Why on earth wouldn't hemp suffice? It's all just cellulose.

    It's like the oil industry. I like oil. Oil is useful. It's a damned shame we burn so much of it, though. I'd prefer we burned hydrogen and used our oil to make plastic.
  • by Hamstij (831222) on Monday February 21, 2005 @08:19PM (#11740388)
    Ok, so this is good news.

    But I'm curious about the implications this ruling will have on other company's attempts to do a similar thing.

    There was a story a while ago about HP region coding their printers, and just recently about BIOS approved cards only in laptops.

    I hope this sets some kind of precedent that stops this harmful tactic!

  • by zakezuke (229119) on Monday February 21, 2005 @08:29PM (#11740445)
    What happened to the old days when the customer was king and great customer service was the way to do business.

    People are too cheap to *pay* for customer service.

    But don't think Lexmark is unique. Back in the typewriter days it was common place to offer low price typewriters but only supply carbon ribbons and charge an arm and a leg for them rather than the fabric ribbons that lasted longer and could be reinked.

  • by xiando (770382) on Monday February 21, 2005 @08:41PM (#11740532) Homepage Journal
    Animals are going extinct because what you say is true, as they become increasingly rare the price on their heads goes up. So they become more attractive to hunt. The same will apply to trees.

    I have personally lost faith in humanity because the majority of the world is made up of media-propaganda-shaped idiots like you who fail to realize the effects we have had on the earth since the beginning of the industrial revolution a mere three hundred years ago HAVE ALREADY caused damages with after-effects who will cause a great number of disasters throughout this century.

    Basically.. it's too late. Two hundred thousand years with the same years and we manage to fuck it up in three hundred. Thanks for yet again proving I am right in my foresights.

    I mean what I say about printers: encourage yourself and friends to consume of any product then your footprint on the earth, the damage you leave behind for your children and your children children, will obviously be less. The less you print, the less damage you do. The more you consume, the more you damage the future of your children. It is very simple. Read this again if you still do not understand.
  • by Dogtanian (588974) on Monday February 21, 2005 @08:43PM (#11740548) Homepage
    No offence intended, but going for #3 is blinkered geek naivity. Even if a large proportion of Slashdotters boycott Lexmark for this reason, it's the old "mistaking your peer group for a typical cross-section" mistake. I doubt socially-aware geeks make up *that* much of Lexmark's customer base (*) and the stupid sheep that *do* probably don't even know (or care) what the DMCA is.

    Sorry, but it's #1.

    (*) Especially since the average /.er has probably figured out that Lexmarks are *not* cheap when you factor in consumables, and will avoid them regardless of Lexmark's DMCA abuse.
  • by Xtifr (1323) on Monday February 21, 2005 @08:43PM (#11740550) Homepage
    Lexmark has just been trying to hide the true price of printing with their printers, using a classic bait-and-switch con. If you don't actually want to do any printing, then I agree that their printers are quite cheap. But not buying a printer at all is even cheaper, in that case. :)

    I'm not interested in just owning a printer. I'm interested in printing. The printer itself is just a tool towards that end. So I don't want it "both ways". I don't care about the price of the printer - I care about the cost of printing. The up-front cost of the printer itself is only a part of that cost, and, more often than not these days, a fairly small part.

    The motivation for the printer mfg to sell hardware at low margins should be the same as it is in any other market: competition!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 21, 2005 @09:08PM (#11740716)
    Study the relations of economics and history-even the most minor sense of social communion with your fellow humans will allow you to observe the flaws in inefficient, wasteful systems and recognize that regulation has provided benefit for all. Externalities, provided you have done that study, were not usually accounted for in supply costs but were taken from the community and greater cost forced onto that body so the firms could make more money. Regulation functions to, among many, stabilise national economy and defense, regulate externalities: waste, noise, infrastructure wear, environmental damage, etc.
  • by swschrad (312009) on Monday February 21, 2005 @09:10PM (#11740727) Homepage Journal
    LOL, currently lexmark ads on TV are saying that customers want a printer company that helps them print LESS.

    we gearheads KNOW how printer companies help you print less. their freakin' chunkajunks break down :-D

    so, way I see it, lexmark is now advertising printers that don't work ;)

    spread the word ..............
  • Some of us geeks help other people buy printers.

    When my mom took me to Staples with her to get a printer, I just discounted Lexmark out of hand. I'm not going with someone whose profit margin is high enough on ink that it's profitable to sue competitors. We went with an HP printer/scanner combo. (Yes, I know, HP computers suck. HP printers do not.)

    Come on, folks. You know you're doing all the computer repairs around here. Well...to make the easier, you need to start weighing in on the computer purchasing.

  • by Secrity (742221) on Monday February 21, 2005 @09:46PM (#11741000)
    "What happened to the old days when the customer was king and great customer service was the way to do business."

    I believe that there are a number of interlocking and paradoxical reasons that customer service has turned to crap. In many cases customers now have tremendous choices of what to spend their money on, but have lost any real choice of where to spend their money. At one time people bought their goods at a huge variety of mom and pop grocery stores, bakeries, pharmacies, deli's, appliance stores, radio & TV stores, office supply stores, hardware stores, book stores, newsstands, restaurants, lumber yards, clothing stores, dry goods stores, gas stations, and so on. The owners and management of these mom and pop stores were close to their customers and the loss of a relatively small number of customers could cause financial hardship for the store. Now, most stores are huge operations that sell a very broad range of goods and there is a smaller choice of stores in a given trading area. Home improvement stores have put hardware stores, paint stores, and lumber yards out of business. Discount stores and supermarkets have put many other stores out of business. The sheer size of these mega store corporations cushions the effects of unhappy customers. This cushioning effect caused by the huge size of these corporations and the fact that the dissatisfaction results in customer churn between the available stores, not the net loss of customers. If things get too bad, stores can be hurt (Kmart) and manufacturers can get into trouble (Chrysler). These large, sophisticated , legally savvy stores and manufacturers (or whatever they are, they don't actually make anything anymore) have the ability to declare bankruptcy, close a few stores or warehouses, lay off employees, get new financing; and keep abusing customers. If a mom and pop owned store or factory declared bankruptcy, mom and pop went out of business and lost their livelihood; the desire to survive was a great incentive to satisfy and retain customers. When stores and manufacturers no longer have an incentive to satisfy customers and investors demand that the maximum short term profit be squeezed out of the operation, customers may as well just bend over and smile.
  • by HangingChad (677530) on Monday February 21, 2005 @10:00PM (#11741076) Homepage
    What happened to the old days when the customer was king and great customer service was the way to do business.

    The same thing that happened to the days when politicians who sold out to big business would get thrown out in shame. And the days when people would be out rioting in the streets and staging labor walk outs over some bastard piece of legislation like the Patriot Act. And the days if an employer tried to tell people what they could and couldn't do on their own time it would be met with a giant sucking sound as employees headed out the door and customers left with them in support.

    We've gone nutless. And the Republican administration which bubba seems to like so much is going to keep sticking it to us in defference to big business because we've collectively lost our nads and no one respects a chump, especially a stupid one.

    One of the interesting facts largely lost to history is that George Washington was someone who had real stones. Some of it was luck, no doubt. But he wasn't just some puss in a powdered wig, he was the real deal. If the father of our country was alive today I'm sure he'd be asking himself who these gutless retards are who took over his country.

  • by Deagol (323173) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @02:08AM (#11742244) Homepage
    I agree with supporting heirloom seeds -- we now get our seeds almost exclusively from Native Seeds [nativeseeds.org].

    As to breaking the law by propogating patented/copyrighted plants, suing may be fine for commercial farmers and other companies, but enforcement of your average gardener will be as practical as the MPAA/RIAA policing peer-to-peer. A few examples will be made, but if there's demand, people will propogate the plants. Simple as that.

  • by MysteriousPreacher (702266) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @05:31AM (#11742803) Journal
    Too right. If Coca Cola can get away with re-selling tap water with added carcinogens Dasani [guardian.co.uk], yet continue to sell their products, then I think consumers have a very short memory. Either that or don't care.

    The average consumer probably won't even hear about this ruling before they go to PC World to pick-up their new Lexmark.
  • by shawb (16347) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @06:14AM (#11742896)
    But going on and on about the extended warranty after the customer flat out says they are not interested isn't cool either. The customer *KNOWS* that getting the warranty nets the salesperson extra cash. Why do you think they want to give you their fucking money? Offer the warranty once. If they don't want it, don't push the issue. If they want more info, give it to them. It's not the thirty seconds that gets annoying. It's the thirty seconds at the office store. The ten seconds at Arby's of them asking if you want fries or a cookie with your low carb wrap. The big box electronic store trying to sell you a $75 dollar Monster video cable when you just bought a shitty 15" TV. The bank sending offers for life insurance with your statement. The cell phone company pushing "two months free" of wireless web and then not turning it off when you call to cancel it. The snotty tone of voice given when you don't supersize. Radio Shack asking if I am interested in a new cell phone when I'm just picking up an RCA cable. It all adds up and soon it starts to feel like everyone is just out for your money. Upselling the customer really does get annoying after a while, and I'd take my business elsewhere if I knew I wouldn't get it there.

    Actually, ever since "Supersize Me" came out, McDonald's has become really good about this. Walk up to the counter or drive up to the speaker and get a "Welcome to McDonald's. How may I help you?" instead of "Would you like to try a (insert random meal here I'm not interested in) for only (price I don't feel like paying.)" And then once you are done ordering, you may get a "Will that complete your order?" instead of "Would you like that supersized?" Seriously, McDonalds (at least where I live) doesn't push larger sizes on you any more. Now, the new "I'd hit it" slogan which I've heard about does scare me, even though it absolutely reeks of urban legend/hoax. But seriously, McDonald's is one of the quickest reacting businesses to market pressures. Once animal rights groups got on them, they proved that their beef doesn't come from South America and made sure that their chicken providers don't cut the beaks off of chickens. McDonald's was one of the first fast food chains to replace lard with veggie oil when fat became evil. Remeber styrofoam containers? You can still find them at a lot of restaraunts, but not McDonald's since the 80's. I'm not saying that they are good at heart, but they do know what most other companies don't seem to realize: Don't piss on your customers. And you know what? It seems to be a profitable business strategy [reuters.com]

    As for your stupid customer with the broken CD-RW, I've seen employees at computer stores equally as dumb. Asked about memory and being pointed to the hard drives. Asked about CPU's and being pointed towards the HPs and Packard Bells (okay, that one was a few years back, but...)

    That aside, I personally usually get the warranty, as it is quite convienient. Especially through American [americantv.com] if you have one in your area. Usually just drop the thing off, then pick it up in working condition less than a week later. And they are the only authorized repair center in my area for a lot of electronics: Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Panasonic, so you know it will be trading less hands when the repairs are done. You do still get some upselling from them, but if you're honest about what you want they help you out. And if you feel like you're being forced into a purchase, find another salesperson. They live off of their commission, so some try to make the quick buck, but the REALLY successful salesemen make their money by building up a portfolio of loyal customers who always ask for them by name when buying something. Oh, and if they want to make the sale, a salesman at American does have the authority to give you a price break. So if you don't waste too much of their tim
  • by Mycroft_VIII (572950) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @08:12AM (#11743253) Journal
    Don't for minute think it's just one of the two major political parties.
    They're both selling us down the river. We need to toss both groups out and elect some of the other parties.
    Between them they've got the people so convinced that thier only choices are tweedle dee and tweedle dum that thier quite happy to share despite the show of partisian politics they put on every few years, and even then it's only the elected officials and those in the public spotlight who pretend anymore.

    Mycroft
  • by Mycroft_VIII (572950) on Tuesday February 22, 2005 @08:22AM (#11743289) Journal
    First off, as others pointed out it continuing AFTER 'no thanks' that was mentioned.
    Second off, look into that 'warrenty' a little closer. What it actually is, is an insurance policy (by law in many states, and is regulated as such) and is seldom worth the paper it's printed on. The ONLY time an 'extended warrenty' is worth buying is when it's a 'no fault' policy. Meaning they can't refuse to fix/replace for ANY reason durring the covered period.
    Generally speaking they ARE an attempt to 'wrench money' from the customer, maybe not a concious attempt on the unknowing employee's part, but most certainly on the companies part.

    Mycroft

The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made. -- Jean Giraudoux

Working...