keatkenneth wrote:
February 14, 2014
From Kenneth Ellman
Reply to Yank (phony name):
Thanks for responding. My comment follow:
1. I did NOT agree to any such terms.
When you installed the product you would have clicked on an Agree button, or the product would not have installed.
While many of these clauses have been enforced to prevent the resale or multiple computer use without payment of fee owed to seller or even stealing and use of the code, etc. , I do not believe that a Court would enforce this against the end user who actually purchased the product and is only using it on his own computer. There are many defenses and counterclaims.
2. I do not believe that the end user normally reads the agreement or that the standing of the parties was equal at the time of contract.
Just because users do not read a EULA does not release them from the obligations, as noted above they would have clicked on an Agree button during the install.
do not believe that the end user consents or is aware that Symantec will send malicious code to the end users computer and shut down one of the programs on the computer.
There is no malicious code sent to the computer. The code is in the installed program as part of the subscription checking mechanism. When the subscription expires, the program ceases to run.
I think it is a trespass and other violations. I think it is actionable. I could write a legal treatise on this question but in any case that is NOT the real issue.
3. The real issue is abuse of a customer by Symantec and the image that Symantec wants to have in the eyes of customers. Does Symantec was to be viewed as a firm whose primary concern is entrapping Customer to get money and threatening a Customer with huge numbers of spam demands for renewal and then sending malicious code to his computer to shut down a program that he paid for.
As shown in Yank's excerp from the EULA, the fee paid is for the use of the program for the period of the subscription. What you refer to as "huge number of spam demands for renewal" are in fact reminders that the product is about to expire so the user can plan for renewal of the product.
4. As I said nobody in his right mind would think that Symantec should continue live update if the renewal is not paid. Likewise nobody in his right ming should think that Symantec would use the internet to invade his computer and send code to shut down a program. That is NOT what customers signed on for.
As noted above, no code is sent to the users computer, the code is in the program.
5. The mystery is why does Symantec do this? When enough customers realize the nature of the abuse or someone sues Symantec to bring this out, Symantec will not be happy. The Live Update is a long term necessity for their program to work properly. If you do not pay for and use the live update then as time goes on parts of the program will simply not do what the customer wants and needs.
Also noted earlier, security programs not only rely on virus definitions to detect malware. Real time behaviour based detections are actually taking the forefront in protection. This also relies on program updates from Liveupdate. If he programs do not get the updates, the user will have a false sense of security. What happens if the user then gets infected by something that an up to date program would have caught? Is the user going to blame the security software company? Is that fair?
The Customer has common sense and knows this. If a customer expects to continue to fully use Symantec he must subscribe at some point to the live update or he fails to get the necessary service. SO there is no issue regarding live update. The issue is simply a heavy handed insult and denigration of the Customer as if they need to shut him off for the complete program, to scare or force the unknowing into immediately purchasing the continuing live update. They would accomplish much more by simple reminder and education that without live update, as time goes on your protection will be compromised. But no they must hit the Customer with a sledgehammer and think that will bring about Customer loyalty.
6. For a long time there was no such blocking of the program. As some pont they changed that policy to scare Customers.
Again not what is to be expected from a reputable firm which Symantec is. Their behavior is that associated with a low quality operation. Symantec is not that and should hold itself to a higher standard as a leader in Customer protection and respect. When Symantec behaves in this manner they lower themselves from the higher level where they belong.
7. By the way the India representatives are nothing to write home about. There are plenty of Americans who could perform excellent technical support and Symantec should consider bringing home some of that technical support work.
I am interested in this subject and anyone with further comments would be welcomed. I have an open mind and would like to see other views.
Kenneth Ellman (my real name).