Re: [dvd-discuss][openlaw]Governmenttakesmoreextremelineinsecond "Eldred" case

["John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>]

Ron Gustavson wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:15:46 -0800, "Michael A Rolenz"
> <Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org> wrote:
> 
> >One tantalizing question is the fact that the UMP CDs do not adhere to the
> >standards created almost 20yrs ago. IN that sense they are deliberatly
> >defective. I don't think any legal scholars have ever addressed what sort
> >of liability a company incurs by deliberatly creating defective goods for
> >the market place. To my way of thinking that constitutes bad faith and
> >should set them up for consequential damages if not punitive ones.
> >
> 
> I think that's why they include the return link.
> 
> Any class action suit (or expert witness) would have to refer to the Red Book
> for audio CD.

No it's far worse for them.  They are selling their CD's a replacements
for data storage disks with a virtual infinite support life due to the
rock-solid standard like the Red Book.  These disks however have instead
a far lower probably support lifespan based on the average duration of
support for a specific version of a specific software application on a
specific OS platform.  This is not apparent to the customer.  In fact
the customer is told -- "don't worry it still works on your PC ...
lookee here we have (soto voce)crappy little player for you to use***"  

It is being sold as "just as good as a Red Book CD" to customers who
(with rare exceptions) will not know better by a company that should. 
This is fraud pure and simple.  I don't have to deal with the "see we
added a sticker saying it wasn't a Red Book CD" defense -- I've got
strong historical precedent that show that (a) the good is inferior in
terms of probable usable life and (b) I bet a subpoena would catch an
email to that effect within either UMG or Midbar.  (and if Midbar didn't
tell UMG about the likely shorter useable life of a application
compatibility vs. Red Book audio -- heaven help them!)

The are selling a good with a known defect without disclosing that
defect for profit -- that's consumer fraud.

.002


***followed by a loud rasperberry and  -- "<sputter> what do you MEAN
you like the features on WMP/Real/MusicMatch/WinAMP better... this is
clearly good enough."