Ed Foster's Radio Weblog

A Contract Only Microsoft Can Break

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 07:25:41 GMT

What kind of contract includes a provision that one of the parties has the right to violate the contract with impunity? Well, the Windows XP EULA for one, as an interesting analysis of Microsoft's legalese points out.

Several readers have justifiably praised LinuxAdvocate.org's "Windows XP EULA in Plain English" page in which each section of the current Windows XP Home EULA is printed side-by-side with a clear explanation of what it means. Given the fact that most of us have "agreed" to it or a very similar Microsoft EULA, the LinuxAdvocate's analysis is definitely worth reading. But the plain English description of one section in particular caught my eye.

The XP EULA's section on limitation of damages reads:

17. EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL INJURY, FOR LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE, AND FOR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR OTHER SERVICES, INFORMATON, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED CONTENT THROUGH THE SOFTWARE OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE, OR OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE FAULT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), MISREPRESENTATION, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF WARRANTY OF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER, AND EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

In plain English, what this paragraph means of course is that Microsoft isn't responsible for any damages caused by their software. But because the list of things the company is not responsible for includes breach of contract, LinuxAdvocate's article points out that this also means "Microsoft is not liable even if they break the terms of this agreement." I must have read this damage limitation paragraph half a dozen times, since it's common to many of Microsoft's EULAs, but that little irony had escaped me.

A quick look at EULAs from other software publishers shows that some do disclaim damages for their own breach of the license agreement and some don't. Now, considering how one-sided software EULAs usually are, you might wonder what terms are in any of them that the software publisher could violate. But in the case of the Windows XP EULA, Microsoft promises not to collect personally identifiable information in the product activation process and not to share user information it collects with third parties. Could that be why Microsoft's lawyers decided it would be a good idea to be able to breach their own license agreements?

The real point here though is just how absurd it is talk about software EULAs as if they were real contracts. An agreement that one side can go back on at any time is no agreement at all. That is the real plain English message of the Windows XP EULA - if only a few more judges would get it.

Read and post comments about this story here.

Online Buys and Shipping Lies

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 03:33:52 GMT

One of the great things about shopping on the Internet is how you can find just the product you want at the beset price. But one of the not-so great things about the Internet, as one reader found recently when trying to buy a laptop mounting stand for his car, is how often shipping promises turn out to be lies.

The reader wrote:

"After an exhaustive search for a platform for my laptop in my automobile, I discovered Autolaptoplinkinc. They have an impressive website with excellent photos of their products and accessories, and fairly good installation instructions/pictures. Their prices are less than half of competing products. But that's where the good news ends."

"I was able to connect by phone to get a question answered about mounting it in my car, but didn't get a very good answer. I also asked about delivery time from date of order and was told two to three days. From looking at the product, that seemed a bit excessive, but I placed my order. That was three weeks ago, and I don't feel it's any closer to being shipped than the day I ordered."

"They immediately sent an email telling me my order was in process and had a link to on-line status. I've used that link every day since I ordered and it has never changed, always showing 'in process.' They also have a toll-free number to call, but it's nearly impossible to get anything but a recording directing that you leave your number. I've done that at least 10 times, but never got a callback. Additionally, they have an on-line chat. I've used that frequently. In the course of those chats, I've been told almost any lie I could imagine including being told four separate times that it had shipped. Each time they said shipped, I asked for a tracking number and was told to hold while they got it. Most of the time, the agent just waits a while then closes the chat."

"One time, I got pretty irate and accused them of lying and was told 'the boss' wanted to telephone me. I agreed and to my surprise my phone rang a couple minutes later. The boss was all apologetic and repeated a couple of the delay lies I had been given before, something about the problem being with a parts supplier. But he assured me they now had all the parts and would be shipping later in the day. He suggested I call back the following day because he would personally take the box to UPS and have a tracking number for me. I was able to reach him the next day and sure enough he had a tracking number."

"Of course, when I went to the UPS tracking page, the number didn't work. I waited until the next day and tried again. This time it said the number had been billed, but cautioned it may not actually be in UPS's hands yet. For the next couple days I checked UPS and that status hasn't changed. I tried to telephone the boss again, left messages, etc., but never got any response. A couple hours ago, I re-logged to their on-line chat and simply asked for status. I was given one of the stock lies, i.e. it's done except for one part from a supplier. The part is due within the hour and my product will be shipped late today. Without telling them I knew I was being lied to, I asked that the boss call me and gave my name and telephone number. Apparently, the boss recognized me, so the call has never come."

A week later, the reader reported he was still waiting for his laptop platform. "Since I wrote you last time, they've said it would ship today two more times. Without any prompting from me, they almost always say they haven't charged my card yet, so much so that I've checked with my card company twice to confirm it. So far, no charge from them. Earlier today, I contacted them on the chat-line pretending to be a new customer. I asked a couple questions about the product as I had done originally. Then I asked about time between order placement and shipment and was told no more than two or three days, just like they told me originally."

"This is clearly a case of where some honesty would help," the reader concluded. "As I explained to the person I talked to on the day I ordered, I probably still would have placed the order if I knew it would be several weeks until shipment. What bothers me is the constant lies I'm told each time I contact them and the growing feeling that it's some kind of scam. I can't help but wonder if I've only been lucky to never encounter other businesses like them in the several years I've been buying on-line."

Read and post comments about this story here.

Comcast Provides Preview of Net Non-Neutrality

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 04:10:39 GMT

With both sides in the net neutrality debate predicting catastrophic consequences if their opponents prevail, any real world evidence of what a non-neutral net might be like can help. So I have to wonder if a recent gripe from a Comcast cable modem customer, plus a story I read in this morning's newspaper about Comcast blacklisting The Well, might be providing a sneak preview of what one of the biggest players has in store for us all.

A reader who is a Comcast broadband customer had a disturbing experience recently. "I'm at a total loss about how to handle this situation," the reader wrote. "An e-mail to me from a friend got bounced apparently by Comcast. He resent it to my G-Mail account so I could see it. It said that his message was "Blocked for abuse. Please send blacklist removal requests to blacklist_comcastnet@cable.comcast.com' among other stuff. So apparently there exists a Comcast blacklist that I cannot control that stops e-mails and that requires my correspondents to ask to be permitted to send me messages."

Since the reader's friend, who was using a Juno dial-up account, wasn't particularly interested in dealing with Comcast's mysterious blacklist operation, the reader tried to get some more information himself. "Comcast customer service tells me that I can contact their Customer Security Assurance department, but the phone number I was given is a continuous message loop with no option to either leave a message or speak to a person," the reader wrote. The reader's messages to Comcast's "EcareOnline" were answered with explanations of how to find the header information from the blocked message that Comcast would need to clear the blacklist. "How can I look at the header of the bounced message if the message was bounced and never got to my inbox? How do I know if Comcast is demanding that others who are trying to message me also get their permission first?"

Before the reader could figure out how to get anyone at Comcast to pay attention to the problem, the blacklist on his friend's messages disappeared as arbitrarily as it had materialized in the first place. But that hardly leaves the reader feeling sanguine about the experience. Why was that particular message blocked? What is Comcast's blacklist based on? If Comcast wants to blacklist known spam sources, why can't it use one of the public blacklists like Spamhaus rather than this totally non-transparent procedure?

A little Googling quickly reveals that the reader and his friend aren't the only ones bitten by the Comcast blacklist. Adding to the absurdity of it all is this morning's story about Comcast blocking all messages from The Well, one of the original online communities. If you know anything about The Well, you know that its highly unlikely that its diehard loyalists are spamming Comcast users. And if you know anything about Comcast, you know that if Well users actually did decide to spam them, Comcast wouldn't have a clue where it was coming from.

Yes, there's no question that all of this is far more easily explained by the remarkable incompetence Comcast has long displayed (see Comcast Seems Clueless About Blacklists) in the e-mail arena than some malevolent plot. This is a company that has never been able to properly support its own broadband customers, much less innocent third parties impacted by its random actions. But that's just the point. Is there any reason to believe that non net-neutrality would make Comcast any better at handling such issues? Or is it far more likely that their blacklist messages will one day include the helpful hint that a small token payment to Comcast is what's required to speed the sender's message on its way? In that sense, Comcast's blacklist ineptitude might stand as the best real-world evidence right now of what disaster the end of net neutrality could spell for us all.

Read and post comments about this story here.

A Warranty Replacement, Verizon-Style

Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:15:52 GMT

A pattern seems to be emerging in the gripes I'm hearing about Verizon. A few weeks ago (see Verizon Never Stops Lying to You) a cell phone customer had promised free minutes snatched away when he needed them. Now we hear from a Verizon broadband customer whose troubles began when a DSL modem went bad while under warranty. See if you can spot the common thread.

"In the summer of 2004 we signed up for Verizon DSL in our computer shop," the reader wrote. "We received a new DSL modem as part of the package we purchased, paying higher rates of course for the DSL service because we had a 'business' account. We had trouble with the modem from time to time, and eventually contacted Verizon while their modem was still under warranty. Verizon kept insisting the problem was with the DSL line or service, and even sent a technician to our place of business to check the lines. This runaround went on for several months, during which the modem went out of warranty. Eventually Verizon admitted that the modem was defective, and agreed to send us a new one for no charge even though it was out of warranty, because we had reported the problem within the warranty period."

In December 2005 the reader received the new modem along with an invoice specifying that there was zero charge for the modem under warranty. "The new modem worked fine, and we felt vindicated since we had maintained all along that this was a modem problem, and not a line problem. Our problem was solved...end of story."

Not. "Three months later, in March of 2006 we received an addition to our regular Verizon bill for $99 for a new modem," the reader wrote. "I called Verizon and they stated that after a careful review, they were charging us for the modem because it was out of warranty. I was aghast, and pointed out to them that the modem WAS replaced under warranty, and that we even had it in writing stating so. I spoke to several Verizon representatives and even a 'supervisor' over the next few days trying to resolve the issue, without success. They insisted we pay the bill, or it would be turned over to collections, with of course the implied threat of service termination. We had to pay the extra charge or face loss of all phone service, a death knell for any business."

All Verizon would offer was a $30 rebate to knock the price of the modem down to $70, so the reader decided to return Verizon's modem and buy a generic one instead. "Now get this," the reader wrote. "Verizon stated they could NOT take back the modem because we had kept it for more than 30 days. But we had thought it was a free replacement because Verizon did not bill us for 90 days. In other words, they waited until their self-imposed return period was up to inform us that we now had to pay for it. Is this a scam or what?"

The ridiculous turned to the sublime when the reader tried to complain about this treatment. "We were furious, and asked to speak to customer relations," the reader wrote. "They gave us an address in Arizona to write to, but we wanted to call instead since phone calls are harder to ignore. The Verizon representative said 'they don't have phones in that office.' Come again? Verizon, a phone company, has customer service offices without phones? The representative repeated this preposterous claim several times, so we finally drafted an angry letter and sent it off to Arizona last March. And we all know what happened next. Nothing. Nada. NO reply of any kind and it is now five months later. Verizon was right, letters of complaint are a lot easier to ignore than phone calls. And the thing that gets me is we still have the invoice sent with the replacement modem stating in black and white that there was no charge for it."

The moral of this story of course is the same as the previous tale about Verizon. Whatever part of the company you may be dealing with, the deal you have with Verizon today may be taken away tomorrow. Or 90 days from tomorrow. That's a pattern anyone who has a choice may want to consider before signing up with Verizon.

Reader Voices: The WGA Blues

Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:09:13 GMT

Our on-going discussion about problems with Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage program has revealed many readers to be in a sour mood. But the focus of their frustration actually seems not so much Microsoft as it is customers who only complain about what Redmond is up to rather than finding an alternative.

"Microsoft has their business plan in place, and they are executing it brilliantly," wrote one reader. "They are one of the largest and most successful companies in the United States. There may have been a time when Microsoft had a monopoly, but that is certainly not true today. If your business plan does not match up with Microsoft's, for heaven's sake, stop doing business with them. There are all kinds of choices: For server software, Novell has file and print services, directory services, and other products that would knock your socks off if you took a couple of days to look at them rather than spending time dealing with the WGA issues. Linux offers magnificent server products, and they are generally no or low cost. For the desktop, Apple has some terrific products, and Linux is really getting very friendly for non-techies to use; have you seriously given Ubuntu a look? It is really quite nice, and very easy to install. At least give something besides Microsoft a try. Intuitive is whatever you are used to. If all you ever deal with is Microsoft products, how will you know what else is out there, and just how easy it is to work with? Do not expect a VERY successful company to change their business model to match yours, however. Right now Microsoft is apparently succeeding in increasing profits by spending all their efforts in fighting what they call piracy. They seem to be willing to sacrifice some customer satisfaction in order to meet their goal. Microsoft is not going to change until the market drives them to change."

Another reader suggests that the best target for customer ire over WGA is the computer vendors. "If my license of Windows is judged by Microsoft as invalid, then the entity that I bought the computer from has committed fraud on me and theft from Microsoft, plain and simple. What the supplier claims in their defense makes no difference, regardless of who they are. The real target ought to be the suppliers and they ought to be sued for this over and over again until they learn their lesson. It may be possible that Microsoft has made an error in declaring a valid license as invalid, but that is not MY problem. If we go against the suppliers, they will have to battle Microsoft, not us. If I buy a computer from CompUSA or Hewlett-Packard or Dell or PC Club or anyone else that has a fraudulent Windows license associated with it, then because the amount of theft from me is over $100, I can lodge a complaint with my local police department and my state attorney general. If enough of us do this, especially in the larger metropolitan areas, those complaints add up and put pressure on local law enforcement to go against these slugs. The pressure on the local store managers from local law enforcement ought to mount up to something worthwhile. This non-valid license nonsense needs to be nipped right at the bud."

Some readers think a lot is riding on how people respond to the WGA fiasco. "Within the next year or so, the Western world will make a big decision, one which may even determine whether it remains the main innovative power or passes the torch to the Far East," another reader wrote. "We have seen here many people having increasing difficulty managing Microsoft's complex extortion regime -- er, protection racket, no, I mean licensing system -- and their various XP and W2K boxen. A lot of them are not just grumbling, but committing to switch to Linux and other open source. The decision we'll have collectively made will be readable in 2008 or thereabouts by doing a census of computers and seeing what percentage now run Linux, versus Vista. The decision whether to break the grip of proprietary operating systems will have been made then. With Vista no doubt to be ratcheted tighter with every service pack, there will be no escaping lock-in -- all your data are belong to Microsoft if you go that route. You won't be able to get your documents into OpenOffice or whatever. If enough of the Western economy changes to being based on Vista computers, MS will be able to hold the whole western hemisphere hostage at any time. They will be the defacto rulers, along with their pals in Hollywood and the RIAA and various other cartels of big businesses. And there will be no escape. There are plenty of allegories in myth; the One Ring to bind them all, the number of the beast without which you cannot buy or sell, etc. Or, we can collectively choose freedom, and migrate our important data to open formats while we still can, before gratuitous DRM features and the DMCA make it illegal to do so."

Read and post comments about this story here.

Unprotected From Protection One

Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:04:37 GMT

As you plan for the day you can drive off into the happy sunset of your retirement years, there's one factor you might not be accounting for in your finances. Don't forget all the companies that might have an evergreen clause in their contract with you that allows them to keep charging for services months and months after you've canceled them. And that's particularly true if you deal with one of the home security services like Protection One.

Ever since I first wrote about the use of evergreen clauses in the home security racket (see An Evergreen Brink's Heist), I frequently hear from homeowners who having the same problem when they try to cancel their service. Long after the customer has met the initial two or three-year service commitment, the security company will demand they pay for the remaining year's worth of service. In recent months, though, Protection One has replaced Brinks as the home security company I most often hear complaints about.

Maybe it's because I'm getting up there in years myself, but the story of a former Protection One customer in Indiana particularly caught my attention. "In September 1991 we signed a home security contract with a company called Emergency Networks," writes Protection One account number 11472842, whom I'll Mrs. Eleven for short. "Protection One is the third or fourth company that has purchased our contract since we signed up. We have paid a fortune over these 15 years to this company for the service, and the equipment was never even updated."

In April of this year, Mr. and Mrs. Eleven sold their home. "We now live in a motor home and are traveling the country, so we own no property that needs protecting," Mrs. Eleven wrote. "The new owners of our home looked into continuing with Protection One but decided they did want to use such an old, outdated system. I do not blame them one bit. So in early April, after they made that decision, I called Protection One and told them we had to cancel our service."

As Mrs. Eleven had already paid the bill covering the service through the end of April, and since Protection One didn't want its 15-year-old equipment back, she assumed that was the end of it. But it was just the beginning. A few weeks later she received a notice that he cancellation was not official until she put it in writing, so she did. She was then told she was supposed to have given 90 days notice, which hardly seemed fair to her, particularly she couldn't before the new owners of the home decided if they wanted to keep the service themselves. But when Protection One sent her a bill for $137 - essentially five months of service -- she was really upset.

"Since we are now totally living off Social Security, this is quite a bit of money for us," Mrs. Eleven wrote. "I told them that I did not think that I owed it, but they insisted and sent me a copy of the contract that we had signed with Emergency Networks. It says that after the initial three-year period the contract renews 'year to year thereafter unless either party gives written notice of cancellation to the other party 60 days prior to the initial or renewal term.' So they want us to pay through September."

In other words, because the contract renews annually, after being good customers for 14-and-a-half years, Mr. and Mrs. Eleven were being told by Protection One to pay up for the last half of their fifteenth year or else. In fact, you could say that their timing was actually pretty good -- if they had sold the house earlier in the year, they would just have owed more by Protection One's lights. And if they were selling the house now in August, Protection One could insist they owe for all of next year as well, since it would be less than 60 days prior to the September renewal.

Believe me, that seems to be what most of the security firms do when they think they can get away with it. But when Mrs. Eleven first wrote me, I was somewhat hopeful because I'd just heard from another Protection One customer who had gotten a satisfactory resolution to his evergreen situation after writing to the company's customer relations officials. So I suggested Mrs. Eleven try that approach, which she did. Ultimately, they wrote her back offering to split the difference on an adjusted balance. If she pays $60, they'll treat the account as paid in full.

On principle, of course, Mrs. Eleven feels she doesn't owe Protection One a penny, much less $60. And even that sum puts a pinch on a retiree's budget. On the other hand, Protection One still holds the trump card of being able to do damage to her credit rating. It hardly seems worthwhile to risk a credit history you've spent a lifetime building for $60.

So what do you think Mrs. Eleven should do? For that matter, what can any of us do about the money traps companies are setting for us in their fine print? Post your comments on my website or write me at Foster@gripe2ed.com.

Read and post comments about this story here.

Recalling a Dell With a Cracked LCD

Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:25:26 GMT

Here's an interesting take on Dell's recall of over four million laptops due to battery problems. How many of those four million customers no longer have the original unit because Dell blamed them for damage caused by an overheating battery? That's what one reader is convinced happened to him.

"In March, less than six months after I purchased it, I opened up my Dell Inspiron one day," the reader wrote. "Immediately, I could see the screen was badly cracked. The notebook had been sitting there untouched on my desk since the last time I had used it, at which time it was working fine. But now the screen was too distorted to use."

Even at the time, the reader could think of only one explanation. "I had always thought that the notebook ran rather warm, but I attributed this to the wide screen and other features," the reader wrote. "But when I saw what had happened, I was certain it must have been heat from the battery after I closed the lid that had caused the LCD to crack."

As the laptop was still under warranty, the reader called Dell and shipped it in. Of course, he was soon told that Dell had determined the cracked LCD was due to customer abuse and repairs would therefore not be covered under his warranty. "They wanted almost a thousand dollars to replace the screen," the reader wrote. "I told them I could buy a better computer for not much more money, which proved to be the case. After many phone calls and e-mails, I told them to keep it. I hope Dell is enjoying my Inspiron."

One has to wonder how many other Dell customers already had a similar experience with a Dell laptop that would now be eligible for the recall. When an LCD is cracked, the easy thing for Dell - or any other portable manufacturer, for that matter - to do is to blame it on the customer. And perhaps that will turn out to be the real lesson of the Dell recall. A flawed product is the manufacturer's responsibility only after enough customers force them to acknowledge it.

Read and post comments about this story here.

HP Printers: The Older, the Better?

Tue, 15 Aug 2006 07:58:42 GMT

Some things get better with age. To judge by the comments I often hear from readers, that seems to be particularly true of HP printers, because they just don't make 'em like they used to.

We all know, of course, that the printer market has changed a lot since the glory days of the HP Laserjet. Low-end printers are now virtually disposable, since it's really the consumables that printer manufacturers make their money on. Even so, many readers say that HP has fallen from the top of their list of suppliers because of quality issues.

"At one time I was the quintessential HP bigot," wrote one reader. "I was a member of the board of directors of a major HP user's group. At that time, HP could do no wrong. Four days ago I bought a new Epson wide format printer for over $3,000, mostly to produce wide format output. I know that I could have bought HP equipment to do the same task at far less expense. However, I did not even bother to look at possible HP equipment solutions because I have come to realize that recent HP equipment has all been designed to produce cash flow, not to serve the public. HP has taken lessons from GE and Sylvania (light bulbs) about how to engineer a product that is designed to fail after a specific number of hours. HP has taken lessons from General Motors and Ford about how to value engineer a product so that it moves out of the door and mostly holds up for the warranty period but is also engineered to quickly age and fail. HP has taken lessons from the bogus roof repair vultures that take your money for maintenance and service but then high tail when you discover that their service does not get done. I have an HP LaserJet 4 that I would like to continue to use because it is a superior product. However, neither HP nor Microsoft will produce the advanced driver necessary to power all the features of this great printer in anything past Windows 98. I have a great HP LaserJet 4100 that has given great service but I fear the day when anything significant goes wrong with it. When it fails, I will most certainly NOT choose another HP product. I may be a slow learner, but eventually even I learn to recognize a company that no longer values me as a customer."

Some readers are of the opinion that even HP's low-end printers used to be significantly better than they are now. "This goes back a couple of years but at one time I used to order HP color inkjet printers, albeit inexpensive ones, with every computer system I ordered for our company," wrote another reader. " I would stack them and use what I needed as they were needed. I had done this for years with inexpensive HP Deskjet printers and seen almost no problems. With the last batch I did this with, I got HP Deskjet 3550's. They felt cheap, looked cheap and we had more than 50% of them just plain not work right out of the box. The real kicker was that, because more than 90 days had passed since we ordered, most of them were out of warranty and it would have cost more to ship them and repair them than they were even originally worth! So we just gave it one try and pulled the ink cartridges from the ones that didn't work and used them as spare cartridges for the few that actually worked. What a bother! I haven't bought a 'cheap' HP Deskjet since."

And even high-end equipment is not immune to failure because of cheap parts. "Last week an HP 5000 large-format inkjet plotter (original cost - $10,000.00) I've had for four years had a failure that caused about 20 ounces of black ink to be ejected out of the plotter near the printhead and all over the plotter, floor, paper roll, etc.," wrote another reader. "A complete mess. A maintenance contract for this plotter is about $1,700 per year. A service call for a technician to come on-site is $1900 and that gets you a 3-month warranty. Not being one for warrantees, I [decided to] forgo that and figured, if it breaks down, our technicians could either fix it or then I would pay the repair fee. Well, four years later and I decide that I don't want to spend $1900 without having at least an idea of what went wrong so I took the printhead carrier apart. I found that a small rubber coupling that joins the ink hose to the tube the printhead plugs into cracked and this allowed the ink (under a little pressure) to get pumped out. Apparently the leak detector module had also quit because it pumped the ink cartridge dry. All because some <$1 part failed. To top it all off, HP only sells the entire ink tube kit for between $400 and $750 retail. At least this I could buy myself, but who is going to clean the darn thing up? You can't win. Even in this day of "high-quality" and "six-sigma" I guess the desire to produce something as fast and as inexpensively as possible has led to mostly disposable items like this. There's almost no reason that it should cost that much to fix or that parts that important are not even available."

Of course, all this raises an obvious question. If HP isn't the one making the printers that will stand the test of time now, which company is? Answer that question in the poll in the left-hand column of my webpage, post your comments, or write me directly at Foster@gripe2ed.com.

Read and post comments about this story and respond to the reader poll here.