Does Your Vendor Issue Gag Orders? 210
Presto Vivace writes to tell us that CIO has an interesting article about customer "gag orders" that some ERP vendors are trying to impose contractually. "The effect: customers will be prevented from working with peers and others in the software company's "ecosystem" to help with technical issues or compare pricing options. 'In addition,' Wang adds, 'the customer now lacks the proper checks and balances in pressuring a vendor to deliver on promised capabilities or address severe security issues, and cannot go to the media as a last resort, if needed.'" What other questionable practices (and potential solutions) have others had to work with?
All we need now is a homeland security tie-in (Score:4, Interesting)
Since ERP is critical to many organizations, all we need now is a homeland security tie-in and anyone who complains about how shitty their ERP package is gets hauled off for interrogation.
Don't laugh, I'm only about 3% joking about this.
Re:All we need now is a homeland security tie-in (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost ALL Microsoft partners sign this.
So the CIO's of most american comapnies need to be fired.
READ the contract for being a Microsoft partner, it's full of that kind of language.
Re: (Score:2)
So then, logically, anyone with a brain wouldn't want to be a Microsoft partner?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So the CIO's of most american comapnies need to be fired.
Yeah....now you're getting it....
Re:All we need now is a homeland security tie-in (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to get weird contacts with all sorts of idiotic conditions. Best way to handle them, is to put the pressure back on them. Negotiate everything else and leave those until the final second, when the vendors are counting the money in their head and, then take out a large felt pen put a solid line through the conditions your don't like and initial each line with a pen and see if the salesman and in turn the sales manager can walk away from the sale and the commission.
Always remember that the sales staff are fighting to get every cent they can out of their 'own' company, any lost sale is personally bad for them and any future problems with the contract, months or years down track is 'somebody else's problem'. Other interesting things are, give an opportunity to their sales manager to demonstrate how much better they are at negotiating with the customer than the salesmen, even though they give you everything you want, they are still getting the sale when the salesmen failed and, of course simply call their bluff and see if they are truly willing to sue the customer in front of every other potential customer.
Re:All we need now is a homeland security tie-in (Score:5, Funny)
ERP - Today's shibboleth for software nobody needs obfuscated by an acronym nobody understands.
Does this mean the CRM and HRM rage is over?
Re: (Score:2)
No, HRM and CRM are just ERP modules.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Guess you didn't get the memo (Score:2)
Dubya is out of office, and Obama don't roll like that.
Obama voted to give telecoms immunity. Perhaps you didn't get the memo.
Falcon
Let them sue (Score:4, Insightful)
Let them sue you and let them watch gag orders get thrown out as unconscionable.
Right?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe they'll be like the credit card companies and the stupid card-charge rules. You can't transfer the charge directly to the customer, offer discounts for cash/check/etc, or have a minimum purchase.
The CC companies are smart on this one, so far, I've not heard of them litigating against an offender. Since their end probably wouldn't hold up, that's about the only way the contract would be honored by anyone.
I hope the companies with these gag orders won't be that smart.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously! What are you smoking. Those Credit Card rules are totally fair and anybody who wants to break them doesn't deserve to get my business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let them sue (Score:5, Informative)
So, at best, your $1 candy bar cost the merchant 77-80 cents in just transaction fees, in addition to the 50 cents or so they paid to actually purchase the bar for you to buy... In other words, he just lose about 30 cents to sell it to you... In addition to that, there are fees just to check your balance for the day, fees to request a payment from your processor, etc. Debit cards are slightly cheaper to process, but overall, the break even point for the restaurant I used to manage was about $5 per transaction. Guess what we set the minimum transaction at?
We only started taking cards because so many people don't carry cash these days, so we were turning customers away. Most are quite understanding about the minimum transaction once we explain why we have it. We do make exceptions for regulars or if someone just bought $30 worth of food and forgot to order some fries or something. You might not like it, however, we can't stay in business long if we're losing money on every transaction, so where are you going to buy your candy bar from then, your high horse?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Last I saw, Mastercard had a requirement for merchants that they not set a minimum transaction amount. If a merchant was caught doing this, Mastercard would terminate their business dealings with them.
Re:Let them sue (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, the place you worked was being ripped off. We pay much less than that per transaction and nothing if the card is rejected for any reason.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I wasn't involved in the actual negotiations with credit card processing companies, the owners of the restaurant did that themselves. All I know are the details of the deal they negotiated
Re: (Score:2)
It depends 100% on your transaction volume and your history. Where I work we get transactions for pennies, but that's an exceptional deal that we get for being a long-standing, reputable, high-volume customer.
If you get a lot of disputed charges, if you only process a handful of cards...It's a wholly different situation, and the GP is right, it can cost 75 cents or more to process a card.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We pay 3% flat rate across the board. No transaction fees. I've received a lot of processing fee quotes and never once have I seen one with rates like that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I've checked around a few places myself after hearing my dad's rates.
My dad gets charged $0.30/transaction + 3% for visa/master card, which is decent but not the best of the people he works with (AmEx was $1.35 + 5%, so he doesn't accept that).
Both gaming stores near my house, high-volume, 2-3 million/year profit (not gross, net, I don't know what their gross is) have a flat $5.0/transaction fee. But then, their average sale is over $100
It depends on the middleman you go through, your negotiating skills, an
Re: (Score:2)
Fees are not that high. For instance Paypal is 1.9% to 2.9% + $0.30 USD See here... https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_wp [paypal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You might not like it, however, we can't stay in business long if we're losing money on every transaction, so where are you going to buy your candy bar from then, your high horse?
It really doesn't matter whether he likes it or not. You signed a contract and you have to follow it. These aren't "pack in" or "implied" licenses. You specifically agreed to this when you agreed to accept credit cards as payment.
And these contracts WILL NOT be tossed or altered in any way by the courts. They are approved by the Co
credit or debit cards (Score:2)
Supposedly using debit instead of credit at the checkout doesn't cost the store anything. Is that true?
Debit cards still have charges. I am a member of two coops and they recommend that if you use a card for payments then to use a debit card for purchases below $20 and a credit card for purchases over $20. Below $20 the fees are lower with debit cards and credit cards are cheaper over $20.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
All of those are true, except for the cash discount. You are not allowed to charge CC customers more, but you are allowed to discounts cash customers.
It's all in how you word the signs.
Also, while I dislike the "no minimum", I only dislike it because of the 20-30 cent base transaction fee. If CC companies would switch to a straight percentage, I'd wouldn't want a minimum fee.
Although I could get along with a 1 penny base transaction fee
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For those of us who are employees, exposing your employer to legal action is generally a CLM.
Re:Let them sue (Score:4, Informative)
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/CLM [thefreedictionary.com]
Which of these meanings of "CLM" did you mean? I presume career limiting move, but please don't do this to readers... making them look up CLM when all you need to do is write a few more characters to make your meaning clear?
CLM explained (Score:3, Insightful)
CLM may mean:
Cthulhu Love Manouever ...or permutations thereof.
Crazed Licentious Muppet
Coccyx Liberating Moose
Custom Lined Meerschaum
Coconut Lapidary Mount
Carnivorous Lemur Molester
Chilton's Lada Manual
Cretaceous Labradorite Mineralology
Chicken Lusting Madmen
Customer Lip Management
Cheeky Little Morons
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot Clinton Loves Mayonaise
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps Clinton Love Mayonaise - depending on the angle you were shooting for...
Use of an abbreviation has a connotation (Score:2)
I presume career limiting move, but please don't do this to readers... making them look up CLM when all you need to do is write a few more characters to make your meaning clear?
Using an abbreviation without expanding it carries a specific connotation, namely that the concept that the abbreviation represents is so entrenched that anybody who cares about the subject should already know the expansion. For example, entities who favor the expansion of government-granted monopolies on reproduction use "IP" without explaining that it refers to "intellectual property", not Internet Protocol.
Re: (Score:2)
You make reference to "Sports Fans" in your signature? Turn in your geek badge. Everyone knows that true geeks hate sports.
Unless you're just a big athletic supporter...
Re: (Score:2)
Your assuming that the lawsuit would be in the court of law. Point me to a single contract nowadays that doesn't force you into "mandatory binding arbitration". Go google that phrase, your screwed if you think you can take it to court.
Why would any one? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would any major company agree to such arrangements?
Of course such insane arrangements with respect to investments lead to a portion of the financial meltdown.
Answer: PHB (Score:4, Insightful)
Because a Pointy Haired Boss says "I don't care what the end user license agreement says! Install the software!." After five or ten rounds of that, the admin doesn't even ask his/her manager anymore. They just click "I Agree" in the box without asking.
Now if it's an actual paper contract that goes through a legal department, the story might be different; but it rarely is.
Large Enterprises (Score:4, Interesting)
In large enterprises, the "click through license" usually means nothing. Lawyers have gotten together to determine the true agreement.
But, some of those signed agreements are really, really stupid - sorta like the finance guy who would search ebay for better pricing on Cisco $150k switches. Idiot.
The PHB is usually a huge idiot when it comes to software. He/she got where they were by demanding action "install CRM this year", then holding all pay raises for 10,000 people in IT hostage until it is done.
Where I worked, Microsoft gave us a bunch of BPM free software. It turns out they needed some sucker/company to stress test it. What a joke. There software performance was tied to how big/fast your MS-SQL server clusters were since **every** transaction, no matter how short lived, had to be put into the DB. In the end, it couldn't keep up and we wasted 9 months with MS engineering/support. We deployed a few IBM P-series servers with 24 CPUs and switched to a UNIX BPM solution that could scale the way we needed in just a few months. Done.
The 120 windows servers were never fully reused before their warranties ran out. MS hadn't certified anything on VMs at the time.
I'm probably violating an agreement talking about this now. That was under company that was bought out by an even larger company a few years ago.
Re:Why would any one? (Score:4, Interesting)
Simple. It probably didn't HAVE such a license back when they first went with the software. But through upgrades, license terms change.
They almost got us that way at the library. The company was EOF'ing the version we used of the card catalog system. The new version (besides being a LOT of money) had a license with terms similar to this.
Long story, short, we use an open source KOHA software. It has its warts (though less than you might think considering how "leading edge" we are in number of libraries running the system). But overall, we put a fraction of the upgrade cost for the commercial package into a "features" fund and we pay a company to develop features that we need as we need them. And the beautiful thing is once we pay to develop it, ANY library can use it. And vice versa. Open source feature has already paid off, too, since we found some features essential for our book mobile usage developed already by a library in Pennsylvania.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course such insane arrangements with respect to investments lead to a portion of the financial meltdown.
Oh no...
This may be a valid analogy, but I can totally see it getting out of hand.
The Pirate Bay Trial, Prosecutor:
"Your honor, what The Pirate Bay is promoting, in essence, is the same thing that caused the meltdown of financial systems worldwide!" (followed by dubious lines of logic.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why would any major company agree to such arrangements?
Why indeed. Just the other day I was talking to a guy who works for a large company that forbids any use whatsoever of open source software, on the grounds that it would somehow leave them exposed to some kind of legal repercussions. One can only wonder if any of their lawyers and managers have even looked at the EULA crap they actually do agreed to, or where their odd misconceptions of FOSS alternatives came from.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would any major company agree to such arrangements?
Does anyone in your organization actually read End User License Agreements (EULA) before clicking "I Agree"? Do you personally know anyone who does?
Good luck (Score:5, Interesting)
"and cannot go to the media as a last resort, if needed.'"
Is that a joke? What an interesting story that would be.
Re: (Score:2)
Which reporting tool did you switch to?
The blank check is in the mail. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Presto Vivace writes to tell us that CIO has an interesting article about customer "gag orders" that some ERP vendors are trying to impose contractually. "
Contracts aren't blank checks. There are limits.
Intelligence is needed in software companies... (Score:5, Insightful)
In all seriousness, trying to force the consumer to do anything to save your business will ultimately drive them away. If you want to safeguard your business, stop making a poor product, work with your customers to fix issues, give decent support, and stop trying to legally tie their hands behind their backs.
This is akin to legal DRM. All it does to legitimate customers is push them away; software piracy seems like the only recourse. Companies have to learn that this is the kind of stuff that we won't stand for if it is ever to change.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pirating software can be an effective business strategy. Think about it -- when you pirate software you might be sued for software piracy. When you pay for it, you might be sued for breach of contract.
Which is worse?
Downloads are needed in software companies... (Score:3, Insightful)
How about option three? Don't use their product at all?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
D) Use open source. Yes I'm 100% serious. My ethics are my own. Not what someone forces upon me. Be it an unethical company nor "but everyone else is doing it" society.
Read this [google.com] to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
A different approach... (Score:5, Informative)
My ERP vendor takes an entirely different strategy of providing miserable tech support, denying the existence of obvious bugs, claiming the the 1960s technology on the back end is better than modern day RDMS, and having their tech support staff focus on minute tiny details that aren't relevant to the problem whenever you ask them for a solution.
I'd switch ERPs in a heartbeat, if the economy would recover.
Re:A different approach... (Score:5, Funny)
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you (Score:2)
Seriously, anyone who's living under a gag order like that and can't go to the "media" won't be able to talk about it on Slashdot, either. It's right there in the first concern listed in TFA:
Re: (Score:2)
Unless he *didn't sign*.
not ERP per se, but our sales/accounting sys (Score:2)
Since it wasn't specifically pointed out...and the original vendor has been bought out TWICE....
The thing i hate about this setup is the lack of user help. The only avenue for aid is through a paid support contract. Irrelevent for us as there is also a required yearly license or it shuts itself off (one of them undisclosed at purchase, i wouldn't have bought if both costs known :/) Sometimes it would be nice if people that found a workaround could share it, but since you can't talk about the problem it is t
Consumer law (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is not about "consumer" law. It is about contracts between businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not about "consumer" law. It is about contracts between businesses.
Depending on the country, there are still some laws governing contracts between businesses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Usually these agreements contain "void where prohibited" in there somewhere. This, obviously, leaves knowledge and interpretation of the local over-riding laws up to the consumer. It's a problem and a responsibility we shouldn't have to be saddled with.
What sign those contracts? (Score:4, Insightful)
The software and services fees for an ERP installation often run into the millions on dollars.
And support contracts come up for renegotiation occasionally.
Can't the customer just cross out the relevant lines in the proposed contract and say, "fuck you"? And if they can't, because the vendor has so much control over the relationship, *that* along should be a cause of nightsweats for the CIO, CEO, and the board of directors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Can't the customer just cross out the relevant lines in the proposed contract and say,
> "fuck you"?
I would think that the fact that a vendor would even attempt to impose such terms would be sufficient reason to look for an alternative.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Customers force a need for these (Score:4, Interesting)
I get the impression a lot of people who say that restrictions on what you can say about your service is immoral, even if it isn't illegal, haven't experienced what it's like to be at a very small IT company.
Customers will mess you around big time. They'll get you to spend a lot of time preparing an assessment and quote, get you to travel halfway around the country to have a 45 minute meeting with you which is fair enough. However they'll then take your proposal, show it to another company who spend some time figuring out how they'd provide a similar service and travel up for a meeting. The customer would then say "can you do this £500 cheaper?". If they say yes they go back to the first company to see if they'll go lower.
You can argue this is just being sensible but in truth, you're using up a lot of other people's time and eventually they'll have next to no profit margin but can't give up the contract because so much time has been invested already. Whilst this is going on, the company has to take the focus away from looking for new contracts to work with them.
This can utterly destroy small businesses who need a steady stream of income to keep their head above water. I work for a company who suffers from this but thankfully it's comprised of a lot of small companies in similar situations and they'll warn each other if there's a customer wasting time like this. Not every company is IBM, Microsoft etc. who can absorb the cost of these customers. We were almost driven to administration by one particular religious group who, after stringing us along for a month and having us draw up a complex proposal and organise government assistance for them, decided to show our proposal to a different company and get them to undercut us.
Many companies have no choice but to force NDAs on lots of aspects of proposals because of this.
Re:Customers force a need for these (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not your customer's responsibility to make your business model work. If you can't get business the way you're doing things, then don't do things that way.
Re: (Score:2)
That's kind of my point. These NDAs are used because it can be impossible to stop customers trying to get other companies to undercut you and take advantage of the work you've already done.
Nothing wrong with a better deal (Score:2)
I see that there is nothing wrong with trying to get a better deal.
In western culture, we have become used to accepting the price tag as is. Now that we've become exposed to other cultures that question the price tag, we've woken up and realised that everything is (and should be) negotiable. If companies (small or large) have a problem with that, then that is their problem. In the same way that the RIAA need to update their business models, so do these companies.
Western countries have become stupidly exp
Re: (Score:2)
that's a sure-fire way to not sell anything. Seriously, are you really Wirt in disguise?
Re:Customers force a need for these (Score:4, Insightful)
What pferdmerde!
Getting yanked around on the front end is not what the discussion is about. NDAs during negotiation are meaningless, because the potential customer knows the quotes from all vendors, and can simply say "lower. no, lower", without specifying anything from the proposal.
This is about telling everyone who will listen that "feature X, though documented, doesn't work; the company denies the problem and isn't fixing it. if it's important to you, don't buy this software.", or, "if you buy this software, the price quote doesn't include the 200% additional cost for \"consultants\" to get it to actually run.".
Re: (Score:2)
Really? TFA talks about not being able to discuss contracts with third parties.
There's a difference between A company drawing up their own different business plan and then haggling on the price to showing your business plan to them and getting them to provide the exact service you spent ages planning for a slightly lower price.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
you're using up a lot of other people's time and eventually they'll have next to no profit margin but can't give up the contract because so much time has been invested already. Whilst this is going on, the company has to take the focus away from looking for new contracts to work with them.
This is called the sunk costs fallacy; if you're being jerked around by some customer, your best bet is to fire them and go look at other contracts. It's also handy to specialize a bit so your costs for the bid are spread across a number of clients.
So, you don't like the free market? (Score:2)
So, basically, you need to pull such BS because you don't like the free market?
Because that's really how it was supposed to work: many perfectly interchangeable products and vendors, perfectly informed customers, and they'll buy from whoever asks the least money for it.
Yes, it drives profit margins down, but that's what it's supposed to do. And it's also the way to weed out the inefficient vendors. If company X can offer the exact same product for $500 less and still make a profit, while company Y would go
Re: (Score:2)
I think his point is that they could offer the service for $500 less, if they didn't have to recover the cost of drawing up specifications for the customer, which company X doesn't have to recoup owing to having the good fortune to have been asked second.
Re: (Score:2)
Customers will mess you around big time. They'll get you to spend a lot of time preparing an assessment and quote, get you to travel halfway around the country to have a 45 minute meeting with you which is fair enough. However they'll then take your proposal, show it to another company who spend some time figuring out how they'd provide a similar service and travel up for a meeting. The customer would then say "can you do this £500 cheaper?". If they say yes they go back to the first company to see if they'll go lower.
You can argue this is just being sensible but in truth, you're using up a lot of other people's time and eventually they'll have next to no profit margin but can't give up the contract because so much time has been invested already.
You're falling prey to the sunk cost fallacy -unless the additional time you put in results in a decent chance you'll get the work don't do it. What you've already expended is irrelevant to what you must do going forward to get the work. If the payoff isn't there then it makes no sense to keep investing time and money. We deal with that a lot; and simply cut our losses and move on if it appears the customer isn't serious or is trying to get us to drop our rates. If you let yourself get caught in a race
Gag orders (Score:5, Funny)
Well, it IS a bit unusual for a company with which you have a vendor relationship to send YOU an order, but if your company makes the best in a variety of gags and other imprisonment equipment and they have a specific use for them, then there could be perfectly reasonable explanations as to why they might want to...
What?
That's not it?
Oh.
Doesn't matter. In fact, makes more sense, really, there's not much business in the gag industry. Might raise some eyebrows, especially with a company acting as a vendor to others. However, everybody needs a good laugh now and then, and if your company makes some decent gags and other tomfoolery to go around, then I can certainly...
What NOW?
It isn't?
Are you serious?
Well, that IS a bit shameful, then. I mean, your company's time and effort is very important, and it can't be stuck wasting both dealing with phony "gag" orders. In fact, there should be laws against it, though I get the feeling these are a bunch of punk kids trying to...
Look, if you're going to keep interrupting me...
What do you MEAN "wrong again"?!?
*sigh* All right, fine, YOU make your own damn comments, all right?
Honestly, can't figure out just what it is you people want from me...
Only a complete loon would agree to such terms (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, if you're locked into their software already and these are the new terms for the next version which you have to have because they are dropping support for your present one, well, you were a complete loon to lock yourself in to begin with.
Why would anyone agree to it? (Score:3, Informative)
Where I am, vendors dance to our tune. Maybe it's because we're huge, but compared to the US we're tiny, but none of our vendors try that crap on us.
Jut the mere hint that we might think about going to a competitor, and they're scrabbling around on all fours, asking for forgiveness.
Don't agree to it in your contract and they have nothing on you? *shrug*
Gag orders (Score:2)
Wikileaks to the rescue. (Score:3, Insightful)
If truth be told (Score:3, Funny)
Our ERP company is a crock of q14=&$^8 NO CARRIER
Yes (Score:2)
Its common in the utility business. Regulated utilities have little incentive to compete for customers in different service territories. So there's a natural tendency to share best practices, lessons learned, which products are crap and which are not among your peers. Because of this, vendors have maintained tight controls over contract terms involving NDAs as well as industry trade groups, where the customers might have a chance to make comparisons.
One interesting aspect of the utility business is that, w
HRMMMMM! NNNNNNG! (Score:4, Funny)
*struggles against the duct tape*
URMMMM! HRMMMMM! NNNNNNNG!
*rocks chair*
Well, ? (Score:3, Funny)
Well I work for and we ! Frankly, otherwise. Furthermore , and I really don't see the problem.
Dark Times (Score:2)
Face it folks, we've entered dark waters. Being a consumer today has become a dangerous and wholly nasty affair. As a society we've become sheep, and allowed our service providers to hold us hostage and hijack our infrastructure to ensure that their imposed dominion receives little or no resistance. Worse we've raised a couple generations of fat stupid people who will gladly give up their rights as long as you give them a Whopper(tm) and American Idol at the properly programmed times periods. This is no sub
The first rule of ERP... (Score:2)
...is don't talk about ERP.
Biznez as usual (Score:2)
Most companies will skirt the law if they can improve/protect their bottom line. I remember "stories" of a large OEM that manufactured PCs who had a super fast bus technology they had patented. A certain large OEM that produced CPUs requested the specs so they could make sure their CPUs were optimized for the new bus. months later the PC OEM discovered motherboards with their bus being sold by CPU OEM in the Asian market. PC OEM threatened to sue. CPU OEM said that if they sued then they could no longer sel
Didn't a AV vendor try this (Score:2)
I vaguely remember about 10 years ago one of the anti-virus vendors included in their EULA that you can't say anything bad about their software without getting their approval first? I remember immediately dumping them for all software evaluations for any product.
About 3 years ago I moved out of the software evaluation business, so I don't remember which one any more.
Similarly, a long distance company tried to forcibly move me to their Long Distance service. Even going so far as to saying I had approved in o
That's easy to counter... (Score:2)
Print a mini-contract on the back of the check used to pay the bills with said company.
Essentially state that by cashing this check, the payee agrees to release the payer from any and all contractual gag-orders or other stipulations that would limit the payers ability to counter problems that payee's product / service / support may give.
Then when an issue arises, wave the cashed check as the contract. It's as legal as the hodge podge the vendor tries to shove down the customers throat.
Better yet, photocopy
The solution is simple (Score:2)
What other questionable practices (and potential solutions) have others had to work with?
As the customer, the solution is very simple:
"If you want me to sign the contract you need to remove these terms..."
As a consultant, we get that sometimes; and then we have to decide if we want the work or not.
A contract negotiation is just that, a negotiation.
Re:fuck the ciO (Score:5, Funny)
my ass is on fire you dick face
Call customer support for assistance. Depending on your level of support, we may have a technician on site to deal with your ass fire in as little as 24 hours.
Please do not attempt to solicit help extinguishing your ass from any other source, as this would violate your terms of service. Also, you are reminded that comparing notes with other customers regarding the cost, support level, or any other aspect of your ass extinguishing service will likewise be in violation of the terms of your contract.
Thank you for choosing Enterprise Ass Extinguishing Services for all your ass fire extinguishing needs. A sales representative will contact you following the successful extinguishing of your ass fire for your feedback.
Re: (Score:2)
A sales representative will contact you following the successful extinguishing of your ass fire for your feedback.
And we'll also send you a coupon for 50% OFF on fire extinguishing the next time your buttocks are on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
The Fine Print: The 50% off coupon is for one buttock only. There's an extra charge of both buttocks are on fire at once.
Old News! (Score:2, Informative)
This stuff has been going on for many years. In the mid-90's PeopleSoft had most if not all of the same clauses in their contracts. Highly configurable software and users were not allowed, under the contracts, to share configurations, add-on code, homegrown reports, etc. Any violations of any of the clauses, by contract, would result in termination of support, termination of license for use, and/or lawsuits.
PeopleSoft can extinguish my hairy yellow ass... (Score:2)
my ass is on fire you dick face
Call customer support for assistance. [..] Please do not attempt to solicit help extinguishing your ass from any other source, as this would violate your terms of service.
This stuff has been going on for many years. In the mid-90's PeopleSoft had most if not all of the same clauses in their contracts.
OMFG!!! PeopleSoft were in the ass-on-fire business? No wonder they didn't want people discussing it!
:-P )
(Oh yeah, and... naughty boy. That's what you get for posting your comment as a "reply" to an unrelated one in order to get a more favourable position
Re: (Score:2)
And to think I almost went with Sado-m Ass Services!
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody's forcing you to read this "whining".. I, as an IT professional WANT to know when a company is trying to pull these stunts.. If you don't like reading these articles, DON'T READ THEM!! I for one want to hear all I can about this type of activity by vendors.... STFU!!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just a "contest" to the vendors, it's all-out war on their customers.
Maybe it's time to show companies who declare war on their customers that it can go both ways.
That reminds me, in an unrelated, yet very related way, that The Pirate Bay is starting their court case. Bless those TPB guys for doing God's work.
Re: (Score:2)
no problem sir, set a controlled back fire in your pubes to stop the spread of the main ass fire. We're now closing this case, if any further issues please call and we'll open another case file.