Legal Eagle Wanted

[DeeGee]

Because I am truly p****d off, is why !!

However, he has had the supplier produce a new key 11 times in the past which must have some financial impact upon the supplier. .

Well, the supplier in this case was UKHO. They do not supply a new key. The software is supposed to do that, but it cannot as it cannot clear some entry in a database which it is supposed to do (and the new versions succeed in doing).

The procedure was as follows...

.I run the key generation wizard.
.It fails and sends me an email saying so (automatic).
.I phone the given number, a lady says sorry and clears the data entry from the database (which the wizard is supposed to do) whilst I am on the phone
.With her on the phone, I just run the wizard and say 'thanks, that's fine'.

Not exactly a big deal ? She says she could still do it, but is instructed not to do so. They have unilaterally torn up the contract. Just because they are big and I am little -- and anyone wonders why I am not looking to find out what my (true, not lightly considered opinions) chances are of getting them to fulfill their contractual obligations?

 

[westernman]

He has an permanent license to use that software on his present machine and future machines (this is my understanding from the fact that they have reissued the key on multiple occasions).

The supplier uses a key to protect themselves against customers abusing the software by giving it to their mates or installing on multiple machines.

I think the management of that key is their problem. They need to come up with a solution.

They wrote the contract, they should respect it.

As a reasonable compromise, how about they give you a free permanent license for the new version of their software?

Otherwise, as for damages, you can request the amount it would cost to "fix" the problem. I.e. to buy an unlimited license for an equivalent product. (If such an unlimited license does not exist - i.e. the new product is limited to 5 years or something, then the amount should be say 4 x the cost of the new product to cover new products going forward beyond the 5 year term)

All IMHO of course.

PS. Good on you on taking this on. Too much of this kind of rip off exists.

 

[AuntyRinum]

Software is usually sold on the basis that you are given a licence to use i.e. you don't own it.
In the contract there will usually be a clause that the software will be supported but not indefinitely. There will also be a clause that the licence can be withdrawn at the company's discretion.
Could it be that the reason they won't provide a key is because they no longer support that product and they want you to upgrade to a newer version which is supported?
Is there something that you haven't told us?
I work for a software company.

 

[DeeGee]

I had a read. You are probably right and have a case.

But what loss or damage have you sufferred ? ....

Now, that is a very good question. One of the things I wanted to clarify was whether a court could instruct UKHO to honour the contract, rather than assess the damage done to me. Like you, I thought that this might boil down to money, which would be pointless - but I do want to know whether a court is able to make such an instruction.

I had rather hoped the money side would go like this... solicitor tells me that he thinks it is worth pursuing, and sends a letter to UKHO saying why they should continue clearing the data (approximately once a year). They decide to ignore the solicitor. Then I go to the SCC and try to get a judgement that they should turn the tap back on.

Ok, am I naïve, Is that IMPOSSIBLE? Is there anyone with legally qualified here, who can say that it is indeed impossible?

 

[GrahamM376]

This document covers some of the problems with Sale of Goods Act and digital products - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...-1125-consumer-rights-in-digital-products.pdf

 

[DeeGee]

Software is usually sold on the basis that you are given a licence to use i.e. you don't own it.
In the contract there will usually be a clause that the software will be supported but not indefinitely. There will also be a clause that the licence can be withdrawn at the company's discretion.
Could it be that the reason they won't provide a key is because they no longer support that product and they want you to upgrade to a newer version which is supported?
Is there something that you haven't told us?
I work for a software company.

I have gone to the trouble of posting the contract online. You can read it yourself and you will see that no such terms exist. If you work for a software company you will understand that 'no longer support' does not mean 'no longer work'. (I gave XP as an example of a product no longer supported, but working in millions of computers to this day.)
Of course they want me to stop using the permanent version and pay up for the new annual subscription. It is the same trick that Adobe have pulled with their Creative System products, Photoshop etc. You either stick with an old version, CS5, or you go for the annualized version which will not work if you do not keep up with the subscription. It is stated clearly and many people have decided not to go for it. I t is the same with TotalTide - the NEW version has the subscription requirement, but the OLD one didn't. Got it?

 

[SLC]

I think one has already told you a solicitor would probably be unwilling to accept direction on this matter.

The SCC may be a way forward.

 

[AuntyRinum]

I have gone to the trouble of posting the contract online. You can read it yourself and you will see that no such terms exist. If you work for a software company you will understand that 'no longer support' does not mean 'no longer work'. (I gave XP as an example of a product no longer supported, but working in millions of computers to this day.)
Of course they want me to stop using the permanent version and pay up for the new annual subscription. It is the same trick that Adobe have pulled with their Creative System products, Photoshop etc. You either stick with an old version, CS5, or you go for the annualized version which will not work if you do not keep up with the subscription. It is stated clearly and many people have decided not to go for it. I t is the same with TotalTide - the NEW version has the subscription requirement, but the OLD one didn't. Got it?

Sorry, I haven't had time to read the entire thread but was trying to be helpful.
From what you have said, you seem to have a case.

 

[Tintin]

The "got it" was rather unnecessary to someone trying to help, as was the sarcasm about Cherbourg a few posts back.

You've had some good advice here already.

I think you need to ditch the thoughts that this is some conspiracy by the big man against the little, you are starting to come across as an obsessed nutter tbh.

And despite the caveat in ypur post signature, many on here manage to be polite despite the "medium".

Good luck with whatever you decide to do - I only wish people with time on their hands and money to waste would put it to good use.

I'm out.

 

[MrB]

Maybe worth dropping JFM over on the mobo forum a message, he's very hot on legal stuff like this.

 

[SLC]

Maybe worth dropping JFM over on the mobo forum a message, he's very hot on legal stuff like this.

Would he(jfm) thank you for this suggestion?

 

[MrB]

Would he thank you for this suggestion?

No idea, he is usually very helpful to everyone and a very knowledgeable gentleman to boot. He can always say no.

 

[prv]

Sorry, but I misunderstood your posting.
What you show is no more nor less than a page from NP 264. It is a tidal stream atlas, not a dynamic display of currents at that time and place.

It is in a sense dynamic, in that it applies the correct time of day, but you're right that this view doesn't incorporate the difference between neaps and springs. I don't mind that; it tells me where we are on the cycle ("NP -> SP 57%") and I interpolate in my head like I'm used to doing with the paper book - I've hardly ever worked out the "Computation of Rates" graph inside the front cover.

HOWEVER -

Tides Planner DOES have a different view which does do what you describe. I don't generally use it because I prefer the familiar human-drawn pictures lifted from the Admiralty, but the choice is there. Here's the tide round Portland Bill this morning, complete with the exact rate for the arrow I've selected:

The other programs I mentioned will do something similar.

Pete

 

[SLC]

@mrb: I suppose it's better than the £245 p/h this gentleman would have to pay if he instructed his own solicitor.

 

[KAL]

DeeGee,

Whilst I empathise completely with your issue, might I suggest that you look up Neptune Navigation and download a trial copy of their Navigation Planner Plus program and give it a go?

If you choose to register the copy, it will come with a folio of UKHO raster charts and a fully built-in tidal and passage planning facility.

You set your route, choose the day and time of your departure and click 'calculate'. You can build in leeway. It allows you to download grib files so you can work the wind into the calculation if you like as well. There is a facility that allows you to calculate the optimum time of departure and you can see the tidal flow plotted live. You can step back and forward to any date and time and see the stream as it is predicted.

On cross channel passages, I usually do my own calculations using the stream atlases, etc, but planner plus has hit the nail each and every time. In fact, following the CTS from the channel islands to Dartmouth last year, it was so accurate that if I hadn't turned off the autohelm we would have hit Dartmouth Castle, all without a single course alteration for the entire 11 hour passage.

It will connect to your GPS or AIS, effectively giving you a chart plotter below.

Its a BRILLIANT piece of software and the best bit is that it's written by a chap who cares about his customers. Yes, you have to enter a key to activate the software, but he has willingly done this for me several times, as I have bought new machines or upgraded. What's more, he was willing to spend 40 mins on his mobile while on holiday in Spain, to sort out a technical issue which was to do with my machine, not his software, in order to make it work for me.

I can't recommend his software or his service more highly.

This doesn't answer your original query, but I hope, provides a much better alternative. The satisfaction of using brilliantly conceived and crafted software, backed with a passion by its maker, should, I hope, go some way to mollifying the rawness of your indignation (and be a lot cheaper than litigation ).

 

[MrB]

@mrb: I suppose it's better than the £245 p/h this gentleman would have to pay if he instructed his own solicitor.

Now there's the thing, the OP was asking for names of solicitors he could instruct in his very first post! Keep up

 

[AuntyRinum]

@mrb: I suppose it's better than the £245 p/h this gentleman would have to pay if he instructed his own solicitor.

No need to instruct a solicitor. It's simple enough to represent yourself in a Small Claims Court. The judge will be advise whether he's right or wrong, but if he loses he'll end up paying for the other side's solicitor. That's the risk. Free advice from an Internet forum is not worth the paper it's written on.

 

[prv]

The "got it" was rather unnecessary to someone trying to help, as was the sarcasm about Cherbourg a few posts back.

I found this outburst rather surprising as well:

Unless you had a LD clause when you entered info the contract (you would not have one so don't bother looking), the very best you could hope for is a percentage of the purchace price.

@han34 - LD, not known to me. Why invent things like that? What have you to gain by that? Is it some form of clever-dickness?

"I haven't heard of X, therefore you must be making it up, and for nefarious reasons!" That's almost Viago territory except with better spelling and grammar.

I don't think "the medium" can be blamed for that.

Pete

 

[prv]

No need to instruct a solicitor. It's simple enough to represent yourself in a Small Claims Court. The judge will be advise whether he's right or wrong, but if he loses he'll end up paying for the other side's solicitor. That's the risk. Free advice from an Internet forum is not worth the paper it's written on.

Is that true? I'd always understood that each side paid their own costs on the Small Claims track, unless the judge considers the claim to have been completely frivolous. Otherwise the risk of a large award of costs (which you have no control over, however frugally you conduct your own side) would put off many valid claims and is the sort of thing it was specifically set up to avoid.

Anecdotally, I've heard that many judges disapprove of, and are inclined against, people employing lawyers to represent them in Small Claims court (as opposed to advising them on their case).

Pete

 

[AuntyRinum]

Is that true? I'd always understood that each side paid their own costs on the Small Claims track, unless the judge considers the claim to have been completely frivolous. Otherwise the risk of a large award of costs (which you have no control over, however frugally you conduct your own side) would put off many valid claims and is the sort of thing it was specifically set up to avoid.

Anecdotally, I've heard that many judges disapprove of, and are inclined against, people employing lawyers to represent them in Small Claims court (as opposed to advising them on their case).

Pete

Well, I may be corrected, but I had always thought that the losing side pays costs. Perhaps someone will let us know.
Presumably solicitors would be involved if, for example, a plaintiff or claimant was unable to attend in person.