5 ms·

I wonder why Joyent thinks they can get away with this. "Q: How long is it good for? A: As long as we exist." seems to be a pretty good definition of "lifetime.

I wonder why Joyent thinks they can get away with this. "Q: How long is it good for? A: As long as we exist." seems to be a pretty good definition of "lifetime." I would think they could only get out of their promise via bankruptcy. Maybe Joyent is trying to substitute for legal bankruptcy with moral bankruptcy.

larrys 14y ago
"I wonder why Joyent thinks they can get away with this" "As long as we exist" Possession is 9/10ths of the law. Nobody is going to file a private lawsuit to enforce this (assuming there is even a leg to stand on to enforce it I haven't read the exact contractual promise..) And the other option would be a class action lawsuit where there would have to be enough class members to interest an attorney. (Not relevant in this case but if a company was acquired the new company may have not acquired all the previous companies legal obligations but simply setup a new entity and assumed some of the assets, liabilities and obligations but not everything. When I sold a company that is how it was handled.).
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- _delirium 14y ago
  Although it still wouldn't be a cost-effective use of time, a sufficiently peeved customer could file a small-claims suit for a return of the fee (or some portion of it).
  - larrys 14y ago
    Actually not a bad strategy assuming the venue is convenient. A corporation has to be defended by an attorney while an individual can be pro se. As a result the corporation would typically want to settle rather than spend money to go to defend in court. My guess is as long as the person filing the suit didn't blog about it and bring attention to the action beforehand there would be incentive to settle this out of small claims court. The amount settled for could easily be the value over time of the "lifetime" benefit. If the company choose to go to small claims court and lost it would certainly not be to their benefit as it would show others what was possible and set some precedent. Keep in mind that even if the company feels their contract is airtight they might decide to settle simply to not have to pay legal fees in many cases.
- mikeash 14y ago
  Why wouldn't somebody sue? It sounds like this service cost a minimum of hundreds of dollars, which is enough to be significant, but still small enough to fit within small claims. If I were one of these customers I'd certainly consider it.
  - larrys 14y ago
    Agree and essentially realized that when responding to _delirium above with regards to small claims court which I hadn't considered on first glance.
    - mikeash 14y ago
      Cool! With all the attention that big lawsuits get, it's easy to forget that small claims is there, and sometimes even effective.
      - michaelhoffman 14y ago
        If more than a few people file in small claims, it is going to be a super big hassle for Joyent.
        mikeash 14y ago
        Not necessarily. They could simply settle with those who sue and not let it get to court. I bet not even 10% would even sue in the first place, so they could still come out well ahead. I wouldn't be surprised if they accounted for that in their planning when doing this in the first place.

larrys 14y ago

"I wonder why Joyent thinks they can get away with this" "As long as we exist" Possession is 9/10ths of the law. Nobody is going to file a private lawsuit to enforce this (assuming there is even a leg to stand on to enforce it I haven't read the exact contractual promise..) And the other option would be a class action lawsuit where there would have to be enough class members to interest an attorney. (Not relevant in this case but if a company was acquired the new company may have not acquired all the previous companies legal obligations but simply setup a new entity and assumed some of the assets, liabilities and obligations but not everything. When I sold a company that is how it was handled.).

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
_delirium 14y ago
Although it still wouldn't be a cost-effective use of time, a sufficiently peeved customer could file a small-claims suit for a return of the fee (or some portion of it).
- larrys 14y ago
  Actually not a bad strategy assuming the venue is convenient. A corporation has to be defended by an attorney while an individual can be pro se. As a result the corporation would typically want to settle rather than spend money to go to defend in court. My guess is as long as the person filing the suit didn't blog about it and bring attention to the action beforehand there would be incentive to settle this out of small claims court. The amount settled for could easily be the value over time of the "lifetime" benefit. If the company choose to go to small claims court and lost it would certainly not be to their benefit as it would show others what was possible and set some precedent. Keep in mind that even if the company feels their contract is airtight they might decide to settle simply to not have to pay legal fees in many cases.
mikeash 14y ago
Why wouldn't somebody sue? It sounds like this service cost a minimum of hundreds of dollars, which is enough to be significant, but still small enough to fit within small claims. If I were one of these customers I'd certainly consider it.
- larrys 14y ago
  Agree and essentially realized that when responding to _delirium above with regards to small claims court which I hadn't considered on first glance.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    Cool! With all the attention that big lawsuits get, it's easy to forget that small claims is there, and sometimes even effective.
    - michaelhoffman 14y ago
      If more than a few people file in small claims, it is going to be a super big hassle for Joyent.
      - mikeash 14y ago
        Not necessarily. They could simply settle with those who sue and not let it get to court. I bet not even 10% would even sue in the first place, so they could still come out well ahead. I wouldn't be surprised if they accounted for that in their planning when doing this in the first place.