Microsoft Mistakenly Sold Fallout 4 For Free On Xbox (polygon.com) 260
On Thursday the $110 Deluxe Edition Bundle of Fallout 4 appeared in the Xbox store priced at $0.00. The Escapist reports that "The mistake went viral, and there's no telling how people were able to take advantage before the error was corrected..." An anonymous reader shares their report:
If you grabbed Fallout 4 for free on Xbox One, it will be disappearing from your account... Microsoft has confirmed that any copies obtained due to the error will have their license revoked, and the games will disappear from the user's Xbox One library.
Now Microsoft is telling affected users that "your free download will no longer work. For the inconvenience we will deposit $10 by the end of June in your Microsoft Account."
Now Microsoft is telling affected users that "your free download will no longer work. For the inconvenience we will deposit $10 by the end of June in your Microsoft Account."
Next, Windows 10? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Our offer of a free upgrade to Windows 10 was an error. Your license will be revoked and the OS will disappear from your PC. For the inconvenience we'll give you a $10 discount on the retail price of Windows 10."
Stupid thinking (Score:2, Interesting)
Hem...When Origin did something similar a couple of years back, they said they let those who picked up games keep them and tha's it. It's how iI got my copy of DA2, an don't regret it. On top of that they made more money off of me.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Microsoft had no legal obligation to let people keep the free game, and those who obtained the game for free didn't have the legal expectation of being allowed to keep it.
Of course, Microsoft could have been nice about it, and gained tremendous good will and positive public relations. But then again, that wouldn't be the Microsoft we all know and love. (I don't consider a $10 store credit being particularly nice about it.)
Re:Stupid thinking (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand, Microsoft would have had to pay Bethesda for the lost revenue, as it's not their game to give away for free even if they wanted to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Microsoft could afford it. and wouldn't it be swell if mean old Microsoft said, "our bad you lucky freaks can keep your game and thanks for buying Xbox over that Sony thing" (and somewhere in Puget Sound, the body of a careless Microsoft employee is slowly picked-apart by the fishes). There, all's well, the universe made right. Would sure make me feel better about buying an Xbox. Instead, Microsoft exercises its DRM muscle to claw back those game licenses that it, entirely by its own mistake, le
Re: (Score:3)
True, it's a good point. They're basically doing what Amazon did, only with a bonus $10 ("no hard feeling!"). Companies with DRM don't eat the cost anymore; that's what customers are for.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, you know, it's a thing. A business has got to make money, no problems. But smaller businesses that rely at least in part on the goodwill of their customers make exceptions on proper occasions. To make those exceptions, however, somebody with authority has to sign off on it. Finding someone with that kind of authority is easier in a small organization than a big one, let alone a huge one. And in a huge one, there is a magnified fear that any fuck-up, taking of responsibility, or bending of a rule will
Re: (Score:2)
If a US distributor gets a shipment of Russian vodka which he is supposed to sell for $10 a bottle and he accidentally sells it for $1 a bottle, then the distributor has to eat the loss. So does MS.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft had no legal obligation to let people keep the free game, and those who obtained the game for free didn't have the legal expectation of being allowed to keep it.
Depends on where you live, in quite a few cases where this would be the "stores error" you do get to keep the product with no strings attached, which happened during ye olde origin mess up. They could have eaten the cost , they could have given vouchers for 50% of the reail item, w hole bunch of things.
Re: Stupid thinking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft had no legal obligation to let people keep the free game
Does Microsoft still charge a subscription fee for access to this service? The reason I ask is that under contract law that could constitute a legal obligation. Three things required in a contract is offer, acceptance, and consideration. The first two have been met. The third one requires money to change hands which doesn't happen if it's free, but could be claimed if it was free but available from a service that otherwise needed a subscription.
Re: (Score:2)
It's less clear in the UK. If a shop mis-prices something and you pay for it and walk out, they can't do anything about it. It's only because Microsoft sells you a licence that they can take it back.
That's why I try to avoid buying licences.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably Canada too, if online sales are similar to physical store policies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's probably fine print in the click through EULA that allows them to do what they did.
Re: (Score:2)
The EULA can't override laws. In many places with consumer rights laws they may end up in hot water.
Re: (Score:2)
Conversely, Origin offered Bejeweled 3 as an 'on the house' thing at one point. I downloaded it, played it, put it away.
Some time later, reinstalled Origin, went to re-download Bejeweled 3 because I felt like playing it for a bit, and was told I didn't own that game. Too bad, so sad, give us money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm reluctant to use them in case Valve would decide to act
So you're afraid of a corporation who would be acting illegally in many places around the world?
I still have my copy of Spore, and we're talking about EA here the company formerly known as the biggest dicks in the industry (surpassed yesterday evidently).
Re: (Score:2)
It does not compare.
Microsoft is mostly evil, always has been, and after their Xbox1 E3 presentation, nobody should expect chivalrous behaviour from them. Users thought they got a special offer (or not), got a trinked for their inconvenience, that's small money. (Although, I wonder if some of the buyers have paid for something, like a console, to specifically take advantage of this offer, but I disgress).
EA destroyed game souls. If you remember what happened to Westwood, Bullfrog, Origin Systems ... and t
Thinking mathematically (Score:3)
What would happen if they sell a game for the wrong nonzero price? Can they later force you to "un-buy" that game and repurchase it at the correct price?
Here's a hypothetical situation.
Suppose Microsoft chooses two test subsets of customers and sells the game for two different prices: BasePrice and BasePrice+$5. They do this for a time, and it gives them a differential of games sold versus price.
If the differential reward is higher at the lower price, they stop selling at the higher price and list the lower price for all buyers from then on.
However, if the differential reward is higher, they un-purchase the games at the lower price with the excuse that "it was listed at the wrong price, you have to repurchase at the correct price".
Hmmmm... I think I've discovered a new way to increase market liquidity!
(Any economist should agree that increasing market liquidity is a good thing!)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they can. The legal ability for a company to fix mistaken online prices after the fact was established early on.
If the mistake is a small one, they will often opt to skip the PR hit and let the mistake stand but they do have the legal right to fix thins.
It is much clearer with physical products. They will usually find and fix problem before a physical product ships. In most cases the give the buyer the option to choose to pay the correct price or cancel the order. With games, because the game it tied t
Nice to know it only works one way (Score:4, Interesting)
A long, long time ago I had to install Windows 95 for a friend so I purchased a copy on floppies because at the time he had no CD reader. To keep the story short when installing the 15thof 25 disks the install would fail. I went back to the store and they replaced it. Again at the 15th disk it failed. I returned to the store and they tested another one of their sets on a system in the store. It failed at the 15th disk. Since it was software it was not refundable and I would have to wait until a new batch came in.
Another time at a different store I purchased Myst on a CD or DVD. The game failed after a couple of day at a specific place. The disc was in perfect condition and in was within the first week. I tried to get a replacement at the store and was told that since it was opened that there is nothing they could do.
On another occasion I bought a game for a console. The packaging was in English with one little note in fine print on the back of the bock that this was the French version. The store would not accept an exchange since the package was opened. I was standing behind a French client who bought an English version which he assumed contained the French language as well. I tried to explain that it was not clearly indicated on the packaging nor in the in-store advertising. I exchanged my copy with the other client and left.
I have other examples where it was my tough luck.
Now we have an "error" on the clients side and we are told that the license will be revoked? The clients paid the advertised price for their license it should be their license to keep. Was the free Windows 10 upgrade a mistake too? Will this be revoked?
Re: (Score:2)
I think what's going on here is that Microsoft is willing to exercise their legal rights (regarding accidentally misadvertized prices, etc.) but back in the day you didn't choose exercise yours (the store had a legal requirement that what stores sell is fit for purpose, etc., which you didn't ensure they upheld).
Re: (Score:2)
I have other examples where it was my tough luck.
Your error is that you live in a country with no consumer protection laws. Each one of your cases above would have ended very differently in places like Australia. "Not Refundable" Is not something that is valid for goods which are not properly described or not in working order. I remember fondly returning a CD which had just been released that day which wouldn't play one track. I expected the worst when I brought it in because this was the height of rampant music piracy. But after telling the clerk that on
Re: (Score:2)
Your error is that you live in a country with no consumer protection laws.
How should someone who discovers such an error correct it, legally?
Re: (Score:2)
Move to a Australia :-). The beaches are nicer here too which is a plus, just watch for the dangerous animals (all of them).
But you raise a very critical point. The legal avenues for you as an individual to entice change are few and far between, especially in a country where the political landscape is locked into two parties which are both in the pockets of corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Another time at a different store I purchased Myst on a CD or DVD. The game failed after a couple of day at a specific place. The disc was in perfect condition and in was within the first week. I tried to get a replacement at the store and was told that since it was opened that there is nothing they could do.
They lied to you.
Me, I bought Myst on a Friday, played it the whole way through over the weekend (with a friend), and then returned it on Monday for a full refund. :-P
Re:Nice to know it only works one way (Score:5, Insightful)
Was the free Windows 10 upgrade a mistake too?
It was heavily advertised as free, so obviously not a mistake. Is everyone on Slashdot autistic? unable to understand empathy, or subjective logic.
The obvious mistake was a mistake. The obvious non-mistake wasn't a mistake. How is that confusing to hundreds here?
Re: (Score:2)
It was heavily advertised as free, so obviously not a mistake.
Even if Windows 10 is free, its users aren't.
Is everyone on Slashdot autistic?
Not everyone, but I have noticed that blatant displays of stereotypically autistic understanding get moderated up.
Re: (Score:2)
Was the free Windows 10 upgrade a mistake too?
Yes, but not because it was free.
Will this be revoked?
One can hope
Sounds more than fair ... (Score:2)
If this happened in a physical store, the cashier would call a supervisor. The customer may get the product for free, but the issue would immediately be remedied so that it would not be exploited. In this case, the customer decided to call over other customers with the full realization that it was likely a mistake. A mistake that would only be noticed by the retailer through abnormal sales patterns or by someone reporting it, i.e. after the fact. Even though the customers were being dishonest, they were st
Re: (Score:2)
That's if the cashier catches it. More than likely they're just scanning by things. Once in a while, they get things wrong in either direction. Every time I go to get a bucket of paint at one of my local Home Depots, it scans up for $21 while it should be $18, this has been happening for at least the last 6 months and every time, a manager comes and I explain it and they call the paint department and I get the bucket of paint for $18. On the other hand I've gotten things that were cheaper than what they wer
Re: (Score:2)
That would be illegal in California (Score:3)
A tangible asset mismarked on the shelves at a physical store would except if a few conditions be required to be sold at the lower of the 2 prices. Not sure how that applies to virtual assets sold in an online market place.
Quoting California B&P Code, 12024.2.
(a) It is unlawful for any person, at the time of sale of a commodity, to do any of the following:
(1) Charge an amount greater than the price, or to compute an amount greater than a true extension of a price per unit, that is then advertised, posted, marked, displayed, or quoted for that commodity.
(2) Charge an amount greater than the lowest price posted on the commodity itself or on a shelf tag that corresponds to the commodity, notwithstanding any limitation of the time period for which the posted price is in effect.
(b) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by both, if the violation is willful or grossly negligent, or when the overcharge is more than one dollar ($1).
(c) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100) when the overcharge is one dollar ($1) or less.
(d) As used in subdivisions (b) and (c), "overcharge" means the amount by which the charge for a commodity exceeds a price that is advertised, posted, marked, displayed, or quoted to that consumer for that commodity at the time of sale.
(e) Except as provided in subdivision (f), for purposes of this section, when more than one price for the same commodity is advertised, posted, marked, displayed, or quoted, the person offering the commodity for sale shall charge the lowest of those prices.
(f) Pricing may be subject to a condition of sale, such as membership in a retailer-sponsored club, the purchase of a minimum quantity, or the purchase of multiples of the same item, provided that the condition is conspicuously posted in the same location as the price.
Re: (Score:2)
As a Californian, I wonder if a software license (generally a license to use, not own) works the same way.
It'll be interesting to see how it plays out in the courts.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see how that law applies. Microsoft didn't charge more than the list price of $0. Therefore it violated none of those laws.
At no point in that law do I see anything requiring the company to sell a product for its listed price, only requiring that it not charge more than its listed price.
Re: (Score:2)
And refuse all sales for the day (Score:2)
They refuse the sale of the object, and correct the error, then reoffer the item at the correct price.
Anonymous Coward appears to claim in another comment [slashdot.org] that the reoffer cannot occur until the next business day. Thus any cashier correcting an error under that loophole must continue to refuse sale of that product for the remainder of the business day.
False Advertising (Score:2)
Their mistake; their loss.
This is straight-up false advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a straight up price mistake - and an honest one at that - which was taken advantage of though quick action and social networking.
Honestly - it happens all the time - the decimal in the wrong place, keying error, a product page that is used for testing goes live before it's supposed to - it happens. Some places will honor their mistakes up to a point ("the first 100 people" or "one per order") but it's up to the merchant. I have no doubt that there is language in the EULA that allows them to correct
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I often laugh at the logic as well. I've never paid a penny towards buying music (nor do I pirate it) but the idea that if I downloaded a song the music industry somehow suffered a loss is laughable at best. Hollywood style math I guess. Sort of like hooker math.
I've also have never spent a penny on music -the Pepsi bottle top free music downloads of many years ago, I gave the "winners" to others; and have never pirated a single song/album.
Yet have quite the collection.
Purchased a used hard drive at a place similar to Goodwill, checking to see if it contained anything; found just about any song title you can think of covering cRap, rock, country, and the rest. Damn!
And the pr0n, gigabytes of videos featuring women with big (huge) rear ends, nothing else. I lol'd an
Re: Oops, sorry about burning down your village (Score:2)
Re:Oops, sorry about burning down your village (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, slippery slope argument for an obvious pricing mistake? Sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
This sometimes happens, but it depends on the size of the mistake. Regardless, there is no expectation, legal or otherwise, that anyone would honor a mistake of that magnitude.
Microsoft is providing a $10 credit to their accounts, after all. It's more than I'm getting (simply because I didn't take advantage of an obvious mistake).
Re: Oops, sorry about burning down your village (Score:2)
I never said "exception". I said "expectation".
And this software is being licensed as on a non-permanent basis. Just like they can one day turn off the servers, they can revoke your ability to play. If there were a significant reason to suspect that free play were granted, under intent, for a long duration then maybe the consumer has a case. I don't believe that to be the case for a mistaken transaction.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally I like the idea that consumers are intelligent, moral beings. Taking advantage of an obvious error isn't moral no matter how you slice it, expecting to get what you pay for when it isn't an obvious error is completely different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Contract law , to some extent, recognizes a difference between "free" and a price. If the license was free, its not clear there was any agreement that could be enforcable by the user. However if the user had paid $50, then there is absolutely an agreement that can be enforced in court.
Re: Oops, sorry about burning down your village (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft, like their Microsoft NBC... (Score:4, Insightful)
In what way is it a consumer right to get something for free that was not meant to be free?
If an online store offers something for sale at price X and I give them X dollars, then it belongs to me.
If Microsoft didn't want to make that deal ... wait for it ... they shouldn't have offered it.
That X happens to have been 0 is no concern to consumer protection laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Try that at a brick and mortar store. Rogue employee goes and says "all mobile phones free!" I'm pretty sure you can't get away with it, and the police will show up soon enough to make sure you don't insist on any right to steal.
Re:Microsoft, like their Microsoft NBC... (Score:4, Informative)
"Try that at a brick and mortar store."
The store would get sued for false/deceptive advertising and lose. The court would find that the onus is on them to ensure accurate pricing AT ALL TIMES per consumer laws.
Source: I've worked tons of brick and mortar stores.
Re:Microsoft, like their Microsoft NBC... (Score:5, Interesting)
Regardless of whether it's a loss or not it would set a precedent that if MS sold something and decided later they wanted to charge more then they could theoretically get away with removing said software or billing you the difference between what you paid and how much more they think you should pay.
Any company could get away with it actually. There's no contractual information that says they can't come back to you for more money later.
Re: (Score:2)
Any company could get away with it actually.
Most sane countries have laws against that.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to be able to afford your civil case in order to prove it first.
Then pursue them in civil court yet again to force them to pay.
Re: (Score:2)
No you don't. Many sane countries also have consumer advocacy groups with legal teeth.
I have been through this before. I bought a 30GB HDD for $30 (fat fingered on the website down from $300). When the company cancelled my order and refunded me saying they had a database error and thus cancelled my sale, all I did was fill out a form. A few weeks later "they decided" they will show me "good will" and ship my order, curiously at the same time as my complaint with the fair trade commission was marked as resol
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to honor an obvious honest mistake.
You most definitely do. Honest mistakes in a contract for sale still form a contract in most of the world. Just that some parts of the world the contract is only upheld if it favours the side with the most money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, same in Australia. Actually the same applies in most countries where sales laws flow on from contract law. I have first hand experience at forcing a company to hand over a $300 harddisk for the $30 I paid for it on their website.
It's the reason that reason a rich person on ebay had to part with high nice and super expensive yacht for $2000, because sales contracts are final. The only room left to argue at all in many cases is if a contract actually exists. That may be Microsoft's only exit clause becau
Re: (Score:2)
Then it becomes an interesting question whether a sale actually took place when no money was paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Then it becomes an interesting question whether a sale actually took place when no money was paid.
I guess it would depend if a valid contract was made via Offer : I will sell you this at $0.00 Acceptance: Here's my click to buy Consideration: Here's your game, and I get access to your data since it runs on my server...
While I can understand MS made a mistake here and most ads include disclaimers about typos and MS probably has such a disclaimer somewhere in its TOS; I think there are two interesting factors at play:
1. In many online sales clicking Buy is merely an offer to purchase that the store still
Re: Microsoft, like their Microsoft NBC... (Score:2)
I'm sure Fallout double-dips on in-game advertising, so maybe it is in fact a sale...
Re:Microsoft, like their Microsoft NBC... (Score:4, Informative)
Hah, WORKING at a store it pretty much the worst qualification for claiming to know consumer law I have hear (well, maybe besides "I have bought lots of stuff!")
The court would almost definitely find for the store in any lawsuit - because they HAVE. Pricing errors are NOT bait and switch. Like many legal definitions, bait and switch requires INTENT.
GO look it up. Even Consumerist doesn't think it's bait and switch: https://consumerist.com/2014/0... [consumerist.com]
Re:Microsoft, like their Microsoft NBC... (Score:5, Interesting)
Pricing errors are NOT bait and switch.
Correct. Pricing errors are not bait and switch.
In a brick and mortar environment; the store can cancel the purchase or dishonor the advertised price Up to and until the customer completes the transaction.
After the customer has left with the item, the store cannot come back and decide they want to change the price, Or the price displayed on the shelf and the register was a mistake, and the customer needs to pay the difference.
The store would definitely lose that one. The store is liable if their employees priced an item incorrectly.
The only way the customer is liable to pay more or return is if the error that was made was in the processing of the payment ---- the correct price was advertised, or the customer agreed to a higher price than they paid, and the cashier told the customer the correct price, but they made the check out for a lower amount, etc.
Customer is not responsible if the store made a bad deal with them, only if there was a bonafide mistake in the handling of their transaction where they paid less than the agreed upon price.
Now.... Microsoft's store is a little different, because they have technical control of the product even after you leave the store
Correct but it would depend on jurisdiction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In a brick and mortar environment; the store can cancel the purchase or dishonor the advertised price Up to and until the customer completes the transaction.
If you mean the monetary transaction, this is wrong in many EU countries. Here the advertised price is considered a binding contractual offer and the contract is considered sealed the moment the buyer informs the seller of his intention of buying (not the moment of actually paying). From that moment changing the price would be breach of contract, as it would be breach of contract refusing the sale.
Said that, there is an exception when the wrong price could be recognised as an error: this is because contract
Re: (Score:2)
After the customer has left with the item, the store cannot come back and decide they want to change the price,
Correct, and when all you buy is a license, you never leave the store with it.
The store is liable if their employees priced an item incorrectly.
Nope. If the price at the register isn't the same as on the shelf, the price is the one the store lets you pay for it. That most stores will honor the shelf price doesn't make it a legal requirement (unless it could be construed as a separate violation, like bait and switch).
Re: (Score:2)
" If the price at the register isn't the same as on the shelf, the price is the one the store lets you pay for it."
Try that in California. You either get the lower advertised price or you get to sue the store. Consumer Protection Laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Hah, WORKING at a store it pretty much the worst qualification for claiming to know consumer law I have hear (well, maybe besides "I have bought lots of stuff!")
The court would almost definitely find for the store in any lawsuit - because they HAVE. Pricing errors are NOT bait and switch."
Try again when you're the store owner, and have had to face lawsuits for stuff like this.
Also, I said NOTHING about bait and switch, so I don't know what the fuck you're on about, there. I said misleading/deceptive, and f
Re: (Score:2)
Try that at a brick and mortar store.
Whereby I would get to keep the goods that I purchased for $0. I always keep my receipts so the loss is entirely on the store.
Re: Microsoft, like their Microsoft NBC... (Score:2)
There'd be no backsies if it were physical goods. An offer was presented and accepted, agreed payment exchanged (even if free) and goods delivered. The consumer did not cause the pricing error. Voiding it post-sale undermines the equivalency of physical vs. on-line transactions whether it is a game mistakenly sold for free or an unauthorized e-book edition of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four vs. a sale of two dozen eggs for -$0.02 after coupon. They're using the ongoing service relationship to renegotia
Re: (Score:2)
There'd be no backsies if it were physical goods.
There are multiple instances of physical goods with pricing errors online that have been cancelled. In addition, if you were in a physical store, do you really believe that the cashier wouldn't check the pricing of something that rang up at $0? I do agree that If you have the physical goods in hand (i.e. they shipped it to you or you made it out of the store) then it would be near impossible for them to request you to return it.
Practically anything you download (music, video, games, etc.) are all "licensed
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually, the physical media will disappear and everything will be licensed and you'll lose access to the content that you paid for when you change vendors.
Only if you're stupid enough to keep the items in the seller's library (cloud, account, whatever).
A normal person will download the movies/song/book, deDRM it and keep his copy in a convenient location. You know, NOT in the cloud?
C-11 and DMCA forbid it (Score:2)
A normal person will download the movies/song/book, deDRM it
Not in a country like the USA, which has the DMCA, or Canada, which has the digital locks provision of the Copyright Modernization Act (C-11).
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I said, a normal person, not a sheep. And I bet a lot of Americans are not sheep.
Re: Microsoft, like their Microsoft NBC... (Score:2)
No, because that was not the agreed-to price. Whether you gave a $50 bill for a $20 game or a $20 bill for a $50 game, the amount exchanged was not was represented as being the price.
When you have a person doing the checkout for the vendor, you have the safety of that checker to call a manager to question and verify the price before the sale is completed and final. When the vendor abdicates having such a gatekeeper on the sale, the vendor assumes the risk.
When servers trusted the client to accurately report
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I bought it, it's mine (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It takes someone of low intelligence to assume that the $0 price was real and not just a mistake.
Re: I bought it, it's mine (Score:5, Insightful)
There are free games and apps. $0 is often a legitimate price.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True... but this world is not decent, and Microsoft does not actually owe people who took advantage of this error anything. You, as a customer, are entirely free to take your business elsewhere in protest.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's a clause somewhere saying for the contract of transaction to be valid at least 0.01 has to be exchanged (or is it $1?).
Re: (Score:2)
Nope there just has to be offer,consideration and acceptance for a contract to be valid. Microsoft offered the product for $0.00, you put made the purchase and it had value to you so consideration is there, and Microsoft accepted by allowing you to download. We have a legally binding contract folks.
Now usually consideration is considered to be exchange of money, but actually it just needs to be something of "value" to you which is far more nebulous.
However in this case the the cost of downloading it because
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect what will happen is that some people will complain to their State Attorney and some State Attorney will pick it up and run with it.
Inm pretty sure this runs afoul of some consumer protection laws.
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that all software already worked that way. No warranty, so you can use it until you can't.
Hence, I don't buy "online only" games and avoid DRM whenever possible. Indie games have been a godsend for my entertainment needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding the warranty; there is a difference between it breaking and intentionally breaking it. Buying a car 'as-is no warranty' does not mean the dealership can come in the middle of the night and snip a brake line because they don't like the selling price.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, but how are we to tell? Win 10 is being pushed aggressively as a free upgrade, so there's an argument there - "Microsoft have advertised widely that this is a free upgrade", fair enough. I suppose it would come down to the court's interpretation of the "Price - $0.00" on the website. If it wasn't accompanied by words like "free for a limited time", then you could argue strongly that it was a mistake. OTOH, an advertised price is an invitation to trade. They offer, you accept, they allow you to do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What should have transpired had "the correct rights in the US" not been for sale at any price?
Re: (Score:2)
Walmart does this all the time online. Price mistake = product never ships. Since this is a license/virtual good, they're simply revoking the license and refunding your money 100%. That's what you "we should sue" idiots are missing that will fall flat as a pancake in court: They've caught an error and are giving you a full refund *plus* a store credit for your trouble. The judge would be laughing though his 2pm martini break.