AOL 5 Gets $8 Billion Class Action Suit 459
ralian writes "According to Time Daily peeved users have filed an $8 billion class action against AOL-Time Warner because of AOL 5. It's sort of funny to see Time reporting on a lawsuit against their parent company. Check it out here."
Funny? (Score:4)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:Funny? (Score:2)
too bad it'll get shot down (Score:2)
tobkin-at-half-truth.com
Okay, so let me get this straight... (Score:5)
1. I am going to become your default internet connection (I am going to be the default autodial in Dial Up Networking).
2. I am going to become your only Internet connection (I am going to delete the other connections in Dial Up Networking and make it impossible to get them back without removing me).
Number two is what's happening, right? This is textbook misrepresentation, right? This lawsuit will still fail because some law makes this kind of misrepresentation legal, right
Gotta love big corporations that think (and probably actually do) run the world.
Serves them right. (Score:3)
--
AOL is malicious (Score:2)
History? (Score:2)
Lawyers got money
Plaintiffs got 5 free hours. Keeping in mind that new users got 20 free hours...
ManTroll
Wait a second.. (Score:4)
It's sort of funny to see Time reporting on a lawsuit against their parent company.
No more funny than seeing inaccurate commentary on slashdot.
AOL doesn't own TW yet....
What do you mean, "almost unethical"? (Score:5)
What do you mean "almost?" It would be unethical, plain and simple. We rely on news sources to be objective (well, we're supposed to be able to rely on them...) and if they allow their affiliations to get in the way of editorial freedom, that's just plain unethical.
--
Re:Funny? (Score:2)
But besides. They're report the FACTS. They're just saying that AOL's getting sued for one reason or another.
It's news.
Interesting lack of details... (Score:4)
I have not had any of these problems at all with anything.
Also, through AOL connection, I use Netscape (just select direct internet connection when setting that up), mIRC, F-SSH, various CuteFTP, AIM (can have your casual ID on while the one your boss knows is logged into AOL) etc. All with no problem.
I would like to know exactly what the real problem is and see if I can manage to replicate it on the antique laptop I use for the road.
Interesting details (Score:5)
A similar article [cnn.com] is running on CNN.com. Some interesting highlights:
I seriously doubt that plaintiffs are going to get anything close to what they're asking, even if they win. $1000 seems like a lot of money, even if you include punative damages. More importantly, it sounds as though a reasonable percentage of users had no problems with the install. The $8 billion figure is just a headline grabber. A more interesting question is whether AOL is going to stick with their "they clicked accept, so tough luck" defense, and whether it will fly if they do.
Re:Serves them right. (Score:3)
I'm highly skeptical of the maliciousness of version 5.0. I truely believe that they wished to make it easier to use, which is exactly what it does.
I still think they're doing an excellent job marketing themselves and bringing the net to mainstream America. So being beligerant about something like this is pretty much ridiculous. No company is going to purposely disable competitor software and think they could get away with it, especially after MS' little runin with making it impossible to download Netscape through IE.
If anything, the story is overly harsh (Score:4)
AOL, through unnamed representatives, gets one quote in the whole piece -- and a legalistic sounding one at that.
And, to top the article off, the piece ends with two extended quotes from some managing editor at *Time* who essentialy sez that AOL has screwed up and needs to be more responsible. An editor at Time?! This guy is qualified to comment because he's the reporter's boss? I guess it cuts down on interview expenses when you only need walk down the hall for a few good quotes.
If anything, I think the story reflects Time's fear of being seen as if it is pulling punches. The quotes from Mr. Big Editor guy make me think this is some sort of internal message to the troops that it's ok to jump on AOL.
Problems described (Score:3)
Competition. (Score:3)
They point out that AOL did it to reduce competition from other ISP's (such as Prodigy) and the question 'Do you want AOL to be your default ISP?' is the setup part that causes problems.
Teaches people right not read their License Agreement [userfriendly.org].
This could be very bad precident to be set by courts, with poor documentation being grounds for a Class Action Suit.
--
Gonzo Granzeau
Re:Funny? (Score:5)
I hate to say this... much as I dislike AOL, and think that their software sucks rocks, I hope they win the lawsuit. No, more than that - I hope they stomp the class-action suit filers into the freaking ground. Not because they didn't bother to read the installation instructions. Not because they didn't examine the "About AOL 5.0" documents on the installation CD. Not because they couldn't be bothered to pay attention and actually try to understand what the hell it was they were installing?
Because they didn't pay attention to the license and warranty... and even if they did, what good would it have done them?
There is no single entity in the software industry that provides any sort of guarantee that their software is fit for a particular purpose, even the intended purpose for which it is sold.
To reiterate: I hope the AOL class-action filers loose.... and I hope that they, their lawyers, their friends, the press, and random people on the street get peeved enough about the loss that public pressure forces the government to dump the UCITA and implement the software equivilent of the automotive "lemon laws" on the books in many states.
AOL becomes the ONLY internet connection (Score:5)
#2 "I am going to become your ONLY internet connection" is what is happening. A freind of mine wanted to switch from AOL 5 to FreeI, and required my help to do so. He was able to dial up to freei, but after the modem connection was established, NO TCP/IP connections would work.
It turns out (according to the network control panel applet) that AOL installed their own "AOL Dial up adapter" network driver and that TCP/IP was bound to this driver. We were unable to connect TCP/IP via another ISP until this AOL crap wa ripped out of the network settings and the TCP/IP bindings were reset to the "Normal" Dial-up adapter driver.
Re:Okay, so let me get this straight... (Score:2)
This is a major pain in the ass where I work because we use PPP dialin for remote support and half of the on-call support people couldn't get into the network to do emergency support because the DUN settings for our dialup were GONE.
AOL: The New Evil? (Score:3)
One evil empire was bad enough. Not that I'm for any sort of governmental control, but it seems they have the only direct power right now to stop corporations from becoming big and evil. What is the greater of the two evils: Big Monopolistic Companies, or the Big Bad Brother Government? (Sigh)
I mean, lots of people use AOL, but hate it. They just don't know of any other way to connect, much like they don't know how to use an OS besides Windows. While we can try to educate people about the internet, it is a daunting task, is it not? These people are at the mercy of AOL ^_^; Who will stand up for their rights?
"You ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're dreaming or awake?"
Re:What do you mean, "almost unethical"? (Score:2)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I have installed the AOL 5 software ... (Score:4)
I have installed the AOL 5.0 software and the following is what occurs to "take over" your hard drive:
Message box pops up asking if you'd like to 1. Use AOL for EVERYTHING (ie. mailto: http: ftp: news: urls ..etc..) 2. No Changes 3. Further customize these settings.
When option 3 is selected, another box pops up allowing the User to CHOOSE what protocols are assigned to the AOL software. I have been using AOL for a few years now (don't ask why ;) and their software doesn't provide the greatest interface, particularly to ftp:// and news:// .. when in Windows I use WS_FTP-LE for ftp and Netscape or MS Outlook for reading my mail and checking my news. For those of you who haven't used aol's Mail tool, it is VERY restrictive. You must experience it to know how bad it really is.. hey, and they give you a free month to decide -- just install windows .. http://www.aol.com/ [aol.com]
Re:When the chickens come home to roost (Score:3)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
AOL (Score:3)
Re:Dumb. (Score:2)
My company used it as a on the road ISP and also as a way to test. If you can access something trhough AOL then it can be accesses by just about anyone. We don't use it now, but we did.
IMHO this lawsuit has merit.
Re:When the chickens come home to roost (Score:2)
AOL made an arguably defective product. A reasonable person would not have been able to forsee the defect; there were no warnings, &c, to indicate that AOL 5 would disable non-AOL network access. $8 billion is ridiculously excessive, but this is far from a frivolous lawsuit. I'm not the judge, but if I were, I'd start by smirking at plaintiffs' counsel, then I'd let this lawsuit go right on ahead. It might send a signal to companies (such as Microsoft) that you can't put out software that sucks without risking serious, perhaps even business-threatening, consequences. Which is as it should be.
Good thing the UCITA hasn't passed (Score:2)
Of course, a case like this could knock down the UCITA, but it would have a much harder road ahead then if It didn't exist. Anyway, help try to stop the UCITA from being passed in your state.
Amber Yuan (--ell7)
Re:Okay, so let me get this straight... (Score:3)
It isn't touching anything, it is merely making itself the default browser and dial-up program,
I haven't messed with Windows DUN is quite a while, but normally, it's quite easy to change the default dialup connection at any time. As I understand it here, AOL not only trashes the other dialup settings entirely, but even when they are manually re-entered, they don't work. The only solution appears to be ripping all AOL software completely out of the system (including registry editing). That's a whole lot more than any other install program does when it asks if you want it to be the default browser.
Sigh (Score:3)
First Toshiba, now AOL. Who do I get to sue if I install a newer version of glibc and the RPM breaks all my apps? Should I be able to sue RedHat because RedHat5 default install had a billion security holes and my box got rooted?
What if KOffice or GNOME Office core dumps and I lose work? (ala alleged Toshiba floppy leading to lost work)
Re:Serves them right. (Score:2)
It's the "semi-seasoned users" that this got, because they were savy enough to have AOL and an ISP, but still, they agreed to let AOL reassociate files on them.
In all my years i've never done an default install - if nothing else, i'd just click all the items a default install would install, just so i'd know what my ooptions would have been. And never give anything permission to reconfigure anything on your system uneless you know exactly what you're getting into.
The worst case if you do that is that you'll have to launch the app first an then open whatever file you wanted to open. If you're sure everything is going okay, you can reassocaite the file type yourself.
"Yay! Windows talk on
Re:Serves them right. (Score:2)
I don't see how you could be - deleting the other dial up connections is clearly malicious, and clearly unnecessary. AOL has no right to do such things, especially to people who lack the technical expertise to undo them.
--
Re:Serves them right. (Score:2)
Re:Serves them right. (Score:2)
I don't see how "default" browser equates to "only" browser, which appears to be what happens.
Re:Okay, so let me get this straight... (Score:2)
But we're not talking about "most people", we're talking about reasonably clued-in people who have installed AOL 5.0 and discovered that it breaks all other dial-up connections. This is not acceptable behavior from any product
--
Re:When the chickens come home to roost (Score:2)
Secondly... I stand behind what I said. Even if I agree that what AOL did was "wrong" (yes I do think it's wrong, misleading, etc) that doesn't make it illegal.
Maybe my RTFM rant was a bit strong, but people tend to think of computers as toasters when they aren't. If I ruin my car because I try to upgrade the engine and I have no clue as to what I'm doing can I then sue Honda because they put a hood release in the car? I'm exagerating here I know, but the whole thing seems so silly.
Re:Okay, so let me get this straight... (Score:2)
The suit is based soley on AOL 5.0, which is not anywhere near 6 years old.
It does ask if you want it to be your "default", but it really takes exclusive control of TCP/IP if you agree.
Amazing! (Score:2)
Why do these people just not use it? They have a choice, use a different service provider. I have seen AOL their *exclusive* content and services are not that great.
From the comments I have seen here it would appear these people have just not set their accounts up corectly. It is human nature just to blame somebody else though. Add a highly litigous society such as in the US and this sort of stuff is just begging to happen.
I have no love for AOL but this is just ridiculous. Just people trying to get something for nothing. I hope the courts laugh it out just like it deserves. Not knowing the US legal system I don't know how likely this is. BTW I have nothing against the US or it's citizens. This is just an observation from abroad.
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to." - I don't remember
You forgot Number 3 (Score:5)
I had to reinstall windows on a friend's computer because for some strange reason (at least on the machine I tried to install AOL 5.0 on for a friend) AOL 5.0 corrupts the msmouse.vxd file. You can test this easily by trying to install AOL 5.0 on a Windows machine and after it crashes have the machine boot at prompt you before performing each task on bootup.
After this occured the machine would always freeze upon booting unless booted in safe mode. Since I had no idea how to edit the msmouse.vxd file or even how to tell what was wrong (plus my friend was getting hysterical) I reinstalled Windows.
PS: In my opinion AOL deserves this lawsuit. Such an intrusive feature was bound to affect so many interactions and cause so many different problems that it was impossible for there not to be some problems. That said their QEs and QAs could have done a more thorough job of testing the software before releasing it.
It's Windows' problem, not AOL's (Score:5)
I.e., the fact that central libraries exist that can be overwritten silently by installing applications, which almost always install their own versions of libraries. AOL 5 isn't the only software with this problem, although it may be the most extensive. AOL wants to use their own TCP/IP drivers? No problem! Just don't erase the existing ones, please. Windows isn't designed to accommodate that.
Re:Interesting lack of details... (Score:2)
The problem is if you attempt to use any other ISP. You didn't say, but you seem to exclusively use AOL. In that case, you'll have no problem. Even if you do use other ISPs, AOL 5 is still not a problem *if you answer 'n' to a critical question*.
Re:When the chickens come home to roost (Score:5)
I'm sorry, AOL knows its target audience is computer illiterate. The answer to "what exactly does saying 'ok' here" is probably undocumented, or, if it is, the docs are either online (after it's too late) or sure as hell not in the "Getting started" skinny version of the manual. If there was TFM to begin with.
In most other professional environments this practice has some dirty name or other, like "churning" or "slamming" or "psychology by the pill"; most are illegal, and the rest will get you a trip before the professional ethics board. What AOL did is not technically illegal, but it's highly unethical, and cost a lot of people a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. I think those people deserve to be richly rewarded for their trouble.... but (gods willing) a jury will be allowed to decide that question. In case anyone forgot, under British common law (which American common law is based on), the jury is allowed to judge the law as well as the facts. The AOL jury-to-be has the power to MAKE their conduct illegal-by-case-law. I hope they do.
Oh, and as for AOheLl and Slime Vermin being already merged.... according to the indications being given out, it's tantamount to a done deal. It might be interesting, however, if for some reason this case in itself held things up...
If nothing else, these so-called "clueless morons" are making a public spectacle of just how BAD yonder so-called ISP really is... and the more we have of that, IMHO the better. I think the plaintiffs should be given a medal for having the cojones to even attempt such a thing.
I know. Down with AOL'ers, down with my karma. But the previous poster noted it better than I... your chickens WILL come home to roost.
Re:Sigh (Score:2)
No-one. Here is the relevant portion of the GPL which applies to the examples you mentioned.
NO WARRANTY
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
For legalese it's actually pretty clear :)
The unauthorized modifications need to stop (Score:2)
The unauthorized modification of settings REALLY needs to stop. Too many popular programs out there do crap to the computer without asking. Many of these things they do because they -know- that the average user doesn't have any clue how to undo them.
For instance Real. Especially them.
They put icons on the desktop, in the start menu, everything without asking. It at least asks about file associations, but when you click "customize" it just shows you EVERY media file type, with a check mark next to each. It doesn't offer any help as to what already was associated, or the like.
Real Jukebox turns on CD-audio autoplay every time you run it. I didn't notice this until I recently switched CD drives and decided to use TweakUI to disable AutoPlay crap instead of turning it off at the hardware level. Every time its run Real Jukebox turns on the audio auto play. No where can I turn it off, never did it ask anything.
And these are actually pretty mild examples.
I wish there were some laws, or at least MORALS which software companies followed, and resulted in user choice for every modification(within reason) to the user's computer.
Re:When the chickens come home to roost (Score:2)
Re:Sigh (Score:2)
The legalese is also pretty clear on most EULA's, like AOL's. This doesn't stop suits from being filed.
You don't _have_ to use AOL's software to get on (Score:3)
Up at my website (err, here [geocities.com]) is a mirror of some software written for Linux (err, Unix) to allow you to tunnel IP packets through the service. Yes, it's real. You may run into some trouble with using pthreads. I am actively working on the code. Does anyone know the issues with pthreads and glibc 2.1 (it compiles fine; it segfaults after running for about a minute; I've traced this to one specific function call)? By the way, it's written in C++ (yuck for me; one virtual function made it not work at all for a while).
Just because AOL is generally considered a "newbie's" "ISP" doesn't mean that all of its users are newbies. It also does not mean that none of them use Unix. I am not a newbie, I use Linux, and I happen to use AOL as an ISP for other reasons.
The great thing about this software is it is not at all intrusive on your system. Just one client program, maybe a shell script (haven't figured that much out yet), and a network interface. Maybe you might have to change your default route. Big deal. It doesn't mess with apmd. It'll leave cron alone. You can keep your dial-up settings for Quake. Very nice.
Kenneth
Difference - SP6 broken by bug, AOL 5 by design (Score:2)
There is no way that Microsoft would have broken these ports by design though, so we are talking about two different things. AOL 5 breaks other ISPs if you install it as the default - by design.
Re:Serves them right. (Score:2)
I'm in (Score:2)
We just thought that was an awesome deal. However, last year, my brother went to private school. And for the longest time, the school couldn't get their network straightened out, so my brother dialed into AOL to get on the Internet.
Little did we know that the $8 a month is ONLY if you sign on to WorldNet FIRST, and then log on to AOL. Otherwise, they charge an exhorbitant connection charge. The resultant phone bill was over $100 for the phone charges ALONE.
I realize this is a matter of policy, HOWEVER, I couldn't find anything about this in the initial policy agreement... that pissed me off. I'd sign up for this any day.
Re:Okay, so let me get this straight... (Score:2)
That's not really relevant. The topic here is AOL 5.0, not older versions. If a year 2000 car has defective brakes, saying that you have '94 doesn't really add anything, does it?
> The prompt says what it'll do and does what it says.
Depends on the definition of "default", I guess. To me, "default" doesn't imply "only" or "exclusive".
Re:AOL: The New Evil? (Score:2)
When the government wants to put a vchip in your television, what do you say? Simple. I can change the channel all by myself. So what do you say when AOL wants to be your only ISP? Simple. I can change the channel.
Stop patronizing these people as being too stupid to make a choice for themselves. I don't care how big T/W/A gets, they will never have enough power to deny me any choice whatsover. What could they possibly do? Pass a law mandating AOL? Send troops to my home and force me to install it? Don't be silly!
$8B isn't enough... (Score:2)
We won't debate on wether or not using AOL makes you stupid or anything. That's not my point. If they'd bothered to make things educational rather than simple... (sigh)
I wonder where $8 billion came from (Score:2)
Re:Funny? (Score:2)
You'll probably get a kick out of the http://www.overlawyered.com [overlawyered.com] website, especially in the section about class-action lawsuits...
--
" It's a ligne Maginot [maginot.org]-in-the-sky "
I was going to disagree... (Score:3)
...but then I read your last paragraph.
It looked like you were arguing that AOL (and the rest of the industry) has no responsibility for the quality of their software, even when it is flawed to the point of damaging their victim^Wcustomers' systems, since they have EULAs that disclaim all such responsibility.
It's true that the agreements have these disclaimers, but I, along with probably most people here, would argue that this does not excuse them, which also seems to be the main point of the class-action. I would protest that they should be held responsible, regardless of what "contracts" they print on the box, and that their attempts to get out of it should not be considered valid. Of course, the question of the validity of shrink-wrap and click-through contracts would come up again as well.
Anyway, you may have been just a bit too subtle: it took me a while to realize that you (at least seem to) share this opinion of the practice. If I understand it right, you're saying that you want the suit to fail so that the issue will be blown up, leading to a real reform, and not swept under the rug with a quick settlement. But, wouldn't a win in court be good for that purpose? If it's not a settlement, but a real court decision awarding damages for what they have done, wouldn't it establish a precedent effectively invalidating the shrink-wrap and click-through disclaimers?
David Gould
Re:Serves them right. (Score:2)
If you don't call this providing Internet access thats easily configurable and easy to use, then I don't know what you'd call it. Yes AOL provides their own content and forums, etc. That does not mean that they don't also provide Internet access.
Re:AOL becomes the ONLY internet connection (Score:3)
Network Adapers:
Ethernet Adapter
Dial-up Adapter
AOL Dial-up Adapter
It works at that level, not at the PPP level, like every other ISP. (Because, of course, AOL doesn't use PPP.)
you're missing the point ... by a mile (Score:2)
This isn't a flame, I just want to make a couple points:
*Minor quibble - by "America" you of course mean "The United States of America," which is in North America. AOl has very little market share in Uruguay.
Re:It's Windows' problem, not AOL's (Score:4)
(PS: The only other OS that is broken enough to allow overwriting of running binaries is Solaris, and I don't even want to talk about it
(And whoever moderated you as flamebait needs to learn more about OS architectures, I agree with you 100%)
---
Other brain-dead installers... (Score:2)
It's not just AOL that specializes in brain-dead installers. About a year ago I had to deal with one "real" ISP's Mac installer that installed old networking software (MacTCP and friends) when much newer stuff (Open Transport) was in place. Not to mention an old version of Netscape, etc. I'm not sure what would have happened if I hadn't cleaned it up.
But wait, there's more! Early USB SuperDisk Drives came with installers that would "update" the Mac OS ROM File to an appropriate version. Unfortunately, it didn't check the version of the existing file. Several minor OS updates later, the "update" (now a downgrade) causes the machine to go to an unresponsive gray screen during the boot process.
But AOL's Bastard Installer From Hell has a little something else: it disrupts rival means of Internet access, causing people to cry "monopoly" and start a huge class-action lawsuit against them. This should be interesting...
Re:who is posting these things? (Score:2)
I doubt I'll stop posting here any time soon, but I don't see how on Earth you could possibly say that Slashdot does good reporting. Journalistically, it's a very shoddy operation, with numerous misleading and flat-out incorrect stories getting posted when a little basic fact-checking would do wonders.
Actually, my first reaction to the "It's sort of funny" comment jibed with some of the other posters -- thinking that the article submitter must find it funny because he relies on Slashdot as his major news source, what with their tendency to overhype petty articles about Microsoft, but sugarcoat and outright withhold stories when it's an ABMer presented in a bad light. I loathe Time's editorial leanings, but their reporting on this story is de rigueur for practically all the major news outlets.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
It's funny, laugh. (Score:2)
RELATED SITES: AOL [aol.com]
Note: Pages will open in a new browser window
External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.
-----
Then Apply the Professional's Sanctions . . . (Score:2)
Okay, instead of siccing some hungry lawyers on them, why not call for an Internet Death Penalty?
This lawsuit will probably end up with a few lawyers making several million dollars, a number of AOL customers receiving a credit of at most $500 towards more AOL time, & continued problems with AOL software & their clueless management. An IDP would force them clean up their act & behave ethically -- & at the least the rest of the Internet would not have to deal with AOL.
Of course, if I was serious about this, I wouldn't be posting this on
Geoff
I hope they win. (Score:2)
Well, there needs to be. I hope this sets a precedent: software makers need to be held accountable in the same way airplane manufacturers and auto makers are held accountable. The software industry should not be immune to responsibility simply because the quality of the products it releases is invariably poor.
Let's put some responsibility into this horrible industry, for once.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Re:AOL: The New Evil? (Score:2)
Now, if AOL, their ISP, wants to start blocking out certain domains, and doing other things an ISP should not do, what are all the non-tech people going to do about it?
Put yourself in a position of someone who has always used AOL, is comfortable with AOL's interface, etc. What are they going to do when AOL tries to control what they see? They aren't going to say "#@$% This!" then install Slackware and a get a T1. They're going to be stuck, because they don't know better.
Not everyone is obligated to become a computer geek. Just because they aren't doesn't mean they don't have online rights that need to be looked out for.
"You ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're dreaming or awake?"
Re:I was going to disagree... (Score:2)
[...] it is just not possible to be sure not to damage something.
We seem to be making different assumptions, and I don't really know who is right: was the damage accidental, due to bugs in the software and/or the (granted) impossible task of anticipating every possible configuration, or did the software deliberately wipe out the other configurations so as to make AOL your only ISP? From what I read, I assumed the latter, though I admit I didn't follow this too closely (who cares about AOL anyway?)
Either way, though, I would refer you to a few Jargon File [tuxedo.org] entries:
evil [tuxedo.org]: "does not imply incompetence or bad design, but rather a set of goals or design criteria fatally incompatible with the speaker's."
evil and rude [tuxedo.org]: "Both evil and rude, but with the additional connotation that the rudeness was due to malice rather than incompetence."
rude [tuxedo.org]: "[sense 3] Anything that manipulates a shared resource without regard for its other users in such a way as to cause a (non-fatal) problem."
Basic manners among applications that run together on a system dictate that it is incredibly rude for one piece of software to modify configuration files that belong to another piece of software. You just don't do that. AOL did. Aside from the sheer aesthetics, one reason why this is so bad is precisely because it is a recognized fact that you can't anticipate all possible cases (e.g., those that involve programs that are written after yours), and so doing this is practically guaranteed to cause trouble for someone, somewhere. Hence, even if they didn't do it maliciously, it is still almost inexcusably bad.
It was clearly rude, and intentionally blowing away the other configurations would definitely strike me as evil, though of course I don't know whether or not it was actually intentional.
I gather that the dialog asked "Do you want to make AOL your default ISP?" To me, "default" does not mean the same thing as "only", so, at most, an affirmative reply would authorize them to tell the system to make their configuration the default, while leaving the others intact. That doesn't seem like something that should be very hard, so if that's all they tried to do, and the side effect was "just" a bug, I do think it's one for which they should be accountable. If they were trying to modify the other configurations non-maliciously, e.g., for some sort of integration purposes, and accidentally broke them, then I still think they should be accountable: sure, it's not reasonable to expect anyone to do something that complicated successfully, but any idiot could have told them that, and they should have known better than to try.
David Gould
[Humor] Neo Installs AOL... (Score:5)
"On the other ISP, where you go by the handle Neo and have consumer freedom and decent ping times. One of these software installations has a future, and one of them does not."
"My colleagues believe that I am wasting my time with you but I believe that you wish to do the right thing. We're willing to wipe your registry clean, give you a fresh start and all that we're asking in return is $21.95 a month."
Neo: "Yeah. Wow, that sound like a really good deal. But I think I got a better one. How about I give you the finger... and you give me my DUN back."
Agent Smith: "Um, Mr. Anderson. You disappoint me."
Neo: "You can't scare me with this monopoly crap. I know my rights. I want my ISP back."
Agent Smith: "Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is an ISP if you have no Dial-Up Adapter? You're going to subscribe to us, Mr. Anderson whether you want to or not."
Neo: !!!
Re:I was going to disagree... (Score:2)
If it's not a settlement, but a real court decision awarding damages for what they have done, wouldn't it establish a precedent effectively invalidating the shrink-wrap and click-through disclaimers?
That would be fine until UCITA passes and explicitly makes click-through and shrinkwrap licenses legal and binding. Better to just blow the issue up and get people to notice how the software industry is about to screw them over bigtime. Then we get UCITA knocked down and any company that pulls a stunt like this again will probably get shot down in court and set a nice precedent.
Re:you're missing the point ... by a mile (Score:2)
As for AOL bringing the net to mainstream America, my point wasn't that they have, its that there's a reason why they were able to do it: marketing and quality service. Of course they had issues when they reduced their fee to a flat rate, but that was poor planning. They don't have a history of being malicious.
As for it completely wiping out all dialup information, I don't buy it. In fact, I know of atleast one person who has installed it without experiencing any adverse effects with dialup networking outside of AOL.
There's no proof here that this was purposeful. Other than an overseen bug, there's nothing here thats tells you they're being malicious, simply because you (and I) do not know specificly what and how the new version effects the system. They mostlikely have a completely innocent goal: to simply things.
Now obviously there has been a mistake made by AOL. Thats not the issue, so stop arguing it. What the issue here is whether they did it purposefully. I'm pretty confident that they didn't.
Re:Okay, so let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Well, I'll answer anyway. Kids. A lot of people in my company are actually old enough to have children who use the computer and guess what ISP most kids use (anyone... anyone...)
2) If your "support people" are doing "emergency" work, don't you think it would be a good thing for them to have the brain-power to create a DUN entry?
WTF are you talking about? That's kind of an assumption on your part that these are sysadmins or something.
(Exactly what do these people support?)
They support our business system which happens to be a legacy billing application for wireless carriers. They are mainframe application coders who dial into the system to look at production problems with the application. Not all of them have or need that much PC knowledge.
So the gist of your comments seem to be that anyone who has AOL on their system or who can't figure out how to recover from whatever 5.0 does is an idiot and shouldn't be relied on for any kind of technical support, is that it? Just so happpens that one of the people that works for me is one of the most technically competent professionals I've ever worked with, and he didn't find out about the problem with his PC until 3am when he was called at home and he tried to dial-in to look at a billing problem. He didn't know his 14 year old had upgraded to AOL 5 on the family PC that he uses once in a while to dial into work to do support. He did figure it out but not until the next day after he drove into work to fix something that would have taken 10 minutes to fix from home. He was pissed and I don't blame him.
Re:Okay, so let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Re:AOL becomes the ONLY internet connection (Score:4)
As for the special 'AOL Adapter'; Its ben around seemingly forever. It is nothing more than a slip/ppp dialer customised to AOL's whim, and is perfectly happy coexisting with other network adapters.
Re:OT: No, It's Not (Score:2)
They did.
Re:Okay, so let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Re:Serves them right. (Score:2)
This inverse is true too. By that I mean that the moment something bad starts happening, the answer is "No", regardless of what the question is. Take the MS office bar for example. If you somehow tell it to close, a long winded msg box pops up with a Yes and a No button. The actual question is (paraphrasing) "Do you want to see this bar ever again?". All (l)users at my work immediately click on "No" without reading the box. I rarely go two weeks without having to bring the bar back...
Re:Then Apply the Professional's Sanctions . . . (Score:2)
Re:Okay, so let me get this straight... (Score:2)
so what is so unique about this specific AOL problem? windows users should be used to this happening, quite a lot of the time...
(I'm really being serious this time)
if you can sue AOL for writing a bad installer or bad drivers (on the win* platform), then you'd have to sue over half of the apps that run on that platform, including the ones that ship with the system (eg, the preinstalled M$ apps).
--
Re:AOL becomes the ONLY internet connection (Score:2)
Knowledge from my AOL Beta testing days. I got kicked out for suggesting a Linux client... funny story really. And I bet the people involved in the suit STILL wouldn't cancel their accounts and switch to a real ISP for a million dollars....
Re:I have installed the AOL 5 software ... (Score:2)
Re:AOL (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I'm in the middle of the software process. I build applications using tools. I have to produce systems that work, based on elements out of my control. Thus I suffer from my bugs and the bugs in the software tools I need. Some weeks are better than others :-\
Re:AOL is malicious (Score:3)
Re:The unauthorized modifications need to stop (Score:2)
Re:who is posting these things? (Score:2)
I tended to belive that Slashdot was relatively unbiased, excepting the pro-Linux stance, until I found out they were supressing Visor stories because "they" thought the product was "over-hyped".
Re:Funny? (Score:2)
In the name of all that's rational, why is this moderated up to 5? It seems the moderators share the poster's completely irrational disdain for class-action lawsuits.
Class-action lawsuits are a way for individuals to pool their resources against a larger interest. It is widely acknowledged that large corporations simply stall legal actions against them, knowing that the other side will run out of resources (money) long before they ever do. Class-action status is one counter to this tactic, and enables other important things.
Now, there are such things as frivilous lawsuits, and it's unfortunate to watch our legal system get abused. However each lawsuit must be evaluated on its merits--not on the class-action status of the suit.
My personal evaluation of the merit of this suit is that it is not frivilous. In fact, I believe that AOL engages in similar practices that MS is under fire for in their anti-trust litigation. The fact that MS "squashed" Netscape is not the main issue there. What is at issue in the MS case is that MS ties its products together in anticompetitive ways. Through (potentially) illegal licensing agreements, MS forced DR-DOS, OpenDoc, Java, and a host of other technologies to the margins (or tried to) so that its revenue stream from PC software sales wasn't threatened. _That's_ the main issue.
Now, look at what the AOL suit claims. The claim is the AOL software alters the OS configuration to the point where attempting to use AOL's competition is impossible, without doing work that's beyond most computer users. Now, that's not the same as colluding with PC clone vendors to ostracize software produced by other companies, but it is similar behavior nonetheless.
You mention that you want the class-action suit to fail, because somehow that will motivate the community to take on the fact that most EULAs are happy horse crap. Wouldn't it be better if this effort _succeeded_? Isn't the legal system the proper forum for this? AOL has never expressed genuine concern for these issues, no matter what the state of popular activism is around them. We (the community) are going to have to spank them in court if we want this to change. Isn't a class-action suit a good vehicle for this? More to the point, isn't a class-action suit the _defined_ vehicle for this?
In sum, I do believe that you correctly point out the crux of the issue here, which is that software companies implicitly demand (come on, who _reads_ EULAs?) that they not be held liable for their work _in any manner whatever_. That's crap, and has to change. One way to change it is to take them to court over it (and that appears to be happenning), the other way is to provide a free (in the GNU sense of the term) alternative (which is what this community is all about). I believe the community should support this suit, and work like dogs to make free/open-source software easily available to users of _all_ levels. Because, in the end, it's all about people using their tools creatively to expand their horizons. AOL doesn't, can't, and won't provide that experience.
Re:I'm in (Score:2)
Now, to him - it was just like using AOL, period. That's all it meant to him. How he got there didn't matter to him, as long as he was using AOL.
Also, when my brother got to school and found their network just didn't work, he called my father and asked what to do. My father called AOL and asked for an access number - because that's all he could think of (accessing the net through AOL).
Now, don't you believe the AOL representative on the other side should have had some type of information in front of him to say, "Oh wait, if you dial this number, you'll be charged... you have to access through WorldNet instead... call them up." ??
Re:AOL: The New Evil? (Score:2)
But imagine there is. No, imagine that there's someone so ignorant that they think they can only use MCI as a long distance carrier. Do we then punish MCI for limiting this guy's freedom? Do we force MCI to inform him about Sprint, AT&T and Excel? I don't think so.
Re:Interesting details (Score:2)
I'm a Brit, so US use f opunitive damages is a bit vague to me.
Isn't this a good case (moral, if not legal) for AOL to have to pay punitive damages, but not individual damages ?
IMHO, AOL deserve to be hit with large punitive damages to discourage this sort of stunt again. The users don't deserve compensation though, because you shouldn't install software on a box you care about, and especialy not when the product has AOL's track record (and other ISPs) of interfering with existing networking settings.
Re:Unethical? yes... (Score:2)
Guess what? Most internet sites work the same way. Why do you think Slashdot has an ad-banner at the top of the screen? Andover didn't buy them to be nice guys; they bought them because it was profitable, and in their interests.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:Okay, so let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Re:AOL becomes the ONLY internet connection (Score:2)
From my experience over the past 5 years, AOL *is* an unethical company at best, and you could even say "evil".
-OT
Re:I hope they win. (Score:2)
I don't think source code is the answer to everything. Microsoft has very good documentation for all (most) of their APIs, etc. I don't need to know exactly how a particular function works, as long as it acts the way that it is documented, which in the case of Microsoft, I've always found to be true.
Microsoft _can't_ change their APIs without announcing it, because it would probably break any piece of software that used that API. Yes, things change between versions, and it's all documented.
People around here like to bash Microsoft for their buisness practices and their software. No problem with that. Their APIs are some of the best documented and explained that I've seen, on a function-by-function level. Higher level views can be a bit more difficult to find, especially for things like implementing their asyncronous I/O systems (using them is easy, implementing is difficult).
I'm not trying to say that having the source code isn't valuable, but it is not the best solution to everything.
BitPoet
Thank You (Score:2)
Re:AOL becomes the ONLY internet connection (Score:2)
Perhaps you meant it installs an instance of TCP/IP bound to the AOL Adapter. Thats normal.
Re:Then Apply the Professional's Sanctions . . . (Score:2)
However, the morass of lawsuits AOL is liable to bring against those of us imposing the IDP on AOL is liable to dwarf the DOJ action against the Beast from Redmond... Remeber, these goons were big enough to buy out Time Warner, and you know how many lawyers Unca Ted and company have.... Damn shame. It would be fun to lance this boil from the butt of the Internet once and for all.
Be that as it may, the mere fact that AOL is getting sued, and the whys publicized, is karma enough for now. Besides, a quick death would be too good for them. Let'em suffer a while.
Re:Interesting lack of details... (Score:2)
No, the Enlgish problems are at AOL where they think "default" means "exclusive". If the prompt said "Do you want AOL to be your ONLY access to the internet?", users could be held responsible.
I have, for example, "default" colors set in Netscape. But I didn't select "override document colors", which means that some pages come up with colors other than the default.
If I say I want something to be my "default", that means I want to use that unless I ask for something else. If I make Netscape my "default" browser, I expect netscape will open any html page I click on. But I don't expect netscape to come up if I manually go over and start Opera. Furthermore, I expect to be able to change my default. With AOL, the only way to change the "default" is to uninstall. If it's your default and you later decide to add Erols, you can't. If I make Netscape my default browser, I don't want it to go and delete all competing browsers. Selecting AOL "default" completely disables other DUN.
Re:Then Apply the Professional's Sanctions . . . (Score:2)
On what grounds?
Packets are carried on the Internet under a tacit gentlemen's agreement, ``you pass my traffic & I'll pass yours." If I don't want to pass your traffic for any good reason (e.g., you're a spamhaus, or it costs too much to service you) or bad (e.g., I don't agree with your politics, I only support sites that use $PICK_AN_OS), I don't have to. And I can configure my routers & hosts how I see fit.
If there were clear legal grounds, do you think threats of IDP would have worked in the past? Alternet/UUnet has equally deep pockets, but backed down after a similar threat.
And as for dragging people into court for any trumped-up cause, there's a thing known as barratry, or abuse of legal process. While certain unethical organizations get away with this (you can ask Xenu or his twin brother Xemu about one), I seriously doubt AOL would dare to do this. Or find enough good lawyers willing to risk debarment in return for any pile of money.
And besides, routers can be flakey things: they can drop packets or lose DNS lookups for all sorts of vague technical reasons. No amount of legal threats will ever put an end to *that.*
Geoff
Re:AOL Has Every Right To Do It (Score:2)
Re:Okay, so let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Re:Are you NUTS???? (Score:2)
It would appear that you have lots and lots of spare cash to throw around, so that you can have only one application per box.
I do have sufficient spare cash that I don't need to install AOL applications (sic) on a box that is also running my business. I have boxes that would cost me $500 / day if they stopped working, and I have boxes that are there for the slaughtering. NO WAY do you install anything, especially not from AOL or M$oft, on the development boxes unless it's vital and trusted. Bitter experience tells me that either of these companies will deliver "trivial browser upgrades" that shaft major system components.
no fscking software author should be breaking my stuff without asking me, first.
Absolutely, hence whacking them with the punitive damages (and devils with red hot pokers too, for all I care)
My point though isn't that AOL didn't do A Bad Thing, but that users who "need" $1000 compensation shouldn't have been so stupidly trusting in the first place. This isn't a mature field as yet, and most of the products out there are majorly broken in one or more ways.
Re:$8B isn't enough... (Score:2)