Norton/Symantec Class Action Suit

[Hoober]

Here

 

[Kalmah]

So, somebody installs new version of anti-virus before the old one expires. Person does not get compensated for the days left on previous subscription. Person sues.


So if I buy some oil for my car.. Then change the oil before the old oil has actually gone bad. I can sue the oil company for not letting me get the extra miles out of my old oil?
Same logic. Different scenario.

Don't change your oil if it's not bad.

Don't change your antivirus if it's not expired.

 

[Gibson486]

Originally posted by: Kalmah
So, somebody installs new version of anti-virus before the old one expires. Person does not get compensated for the days left on previous subscription. Person sues.


So if I buy some oil for my car.. Then change the oil before the old oil has actually gone bad. I can sue the oil company for not letting me get the extra miles out of my old oil?
Same logic. Different scenario.

Don't change your oil if it's not bad.

Don't change your antivirus if it's not expired.

Did not read link.....I think it is more along the lines of the should let the old one expire before the new one takes effect. After all....that is how most warrenties extensions work

 

[Aikouka]

I was pissed at Norton when I purchased a version of Systemworks when I mostly just wanted NAV and Ghost... the website said it had Ghost in multiple places, I got it and no Ghost. I complained to Norton about it and they pretty much just told me tough luck. They fixed it on one of the places on their site and I never checked after that to see if they fixed it on the other.

Since then, I won't buy another Norton product... evar.

 

[Hoober]

That's the lawsuit. Folks feel that if they upgrade their software to a new release while time remains on the original subscription, they should be compensated for that time -- either the new subscription shouldn't start until the original term is up, or they should be compensated for the lost subscription period.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: Kalmah
So, somebody installs new version of anti-virus before the old one expires. Person does not get compensated for the days left on previous subscription. Person sues.


So if I buy some oil for my car.. Then change the oil before the old oil has actually gone bad. I can sue the oil company for not letting me get the extra miles out of my old oil?
Same logic. Different scenario.

Don't change your oil if it's not bad.

Don't change your antivirus if it's not expired.

Or to get back to the "subscription" idea.

You have a magazine subscription. You buy another years worth, they start coming after the year you already paid for has run it's course.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Hoober
That's the lawsuit. Folks feel that if they upgrade their software to a new release while time remains on the original subscription, they should be compensated for that time -- either the new subscription shouldn't start until the original term is up, or they should be compensated for the lost subscription period.

Morans.

 

[Hoober]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Hoober
That's the lawsuit. Folks feel that if they upgrade their software to a new release while time remains on the original subscription, they should be compensated for that time -- either the new subscription shouldn't start until the original term is up, or they should be compensated for the lost subscription period.

Morans.

I agree with them. Like Turin said, it's a subscription service like a magazine. 2nd subscription should start after the first one ends, or some compensation should be made.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Hoober
That's the lawsuit. Folks feel that if they upgrade their software to a new release while time remains on the original subscription, they should be compensated for that time -- either the new subscription shouldn't start until the original term is up, or they should be compensated for the lost subscription period.

Morans.

I disagree

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: Kalmah
So, somebody installs new version of anti-virus before the old one expires. Person does not get compensated for the days left on previous subscription. Person sues.


So if I buy some oil for my car.. Then change the oil before the old oil has actually gone bad. I can sue the oil company for not letting me get the extra miles out of my old oil?
Same logic. Different scenario.

Don't change your oil if it's not bad.

Don't change your antivirus if it's not expired.

Or to get back to the "subscription" idea.

You have a magazine subscription. You buy another years worth, they start coming after the year you already paid for has run it's course.

This ^^ is a better analogy.


So basically if you are NOT compensated for the loss of subscription time it essentially becomes a draw back to upgrading. As in, "I'm not going to upgrade to a newer version because I still have XX months left on my subscription." That's a damn nice way for Norton to make some money selling new versions, but not giving services for old subs - by people collectively giving up on old sub time by wanting to have a new (and more reliable) version.

 

[Vehemence]

Fuck Symantec. Even if I disagree with whatever lawsuit I hope Symantec loses.

 

[Kalmah]

Well, if it's the exact same piece of software. (2007 norton antivirus and extend subscription with another 2007 av) then I can see being pissed.

But if you bought the 08 version and expect your old 07 subscription to continue with a newer version of the software then it gets a little fuzzy.

I guess I agree with the lawesuit though. Just to have some respect for their customers, they should allow the old subscription to continue.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: Kalmah
Well, if it's the exact same piece of software. (2007 norton antivirus and extend subscription with another 2007 av) then I can see being pissed.

But if you bought the 08 version and expect your old 07 subscription to continue with a newer version of the software then it gets a little fuzzy.

I guess I agree with the lawesuit though. Just to have some respect for their customers, they should allow the old subscription to continue.

The subscription is for virus database updates, I don't see why this shouldn't transcend versions. It's not like they're subscribing to a year license of NAV '0X.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Kalmah
Well, if it's the exact same piece of software. (2007 norton antivirus and extend subscription with another 2007 av) then I can see being pissed.

But if you bought the 08 version and expect your old 07 subscription to continue with a newer version of the software then it gets a little fuzzy.

I guess I agree with the lawesuit though. Just to have some respect for their customers, they should allow the old subscription to continue.

The subscription is for virus database updates, I don't see why this shouldn't transcend versions. It's not like they're subscribing to a year license of NAV '0X.

exactly

 

[Chadder007]

They are better off without Norton anyway.....

 

[torpid]

Where's the lawsuit for norton crippling my system for 15 minutes every time I reboot? Yes, it was norton, because once I uninstalled and installed eset nod32, my system suddenly felt like a lamborghini.

 

[CalvinHobbes]

This certainly doesn't deserve a lawsuit. They should be able to get a refund of the software and then they're free to buy something else.

 

[Hoober]

Originally posted by: CalvinHobbes
This certainly doesn't deserve a lawsuit. They should be able to get a refund of the software and then they're free to buy something else.

I get the feeling Symantec's told them they can't have a refund.

 

[BoomerD]

Meh...class-action lawsuits usually suck for the consumer anyway. The lawyers on both sides will make $ millions $, and the consumers will get a 10% coupon to use on their next purchase...:roll: