[AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy

DWUTKA at marlow.com DWUTKA at marlow.com
Tue Jan 25 15:29:59 CST 2005


Hey, keep those blows above board Mister!

Otherwise I might let out that you were integral in the Help file 'upgrades'
that came with Access 2k and up....oooops...did I just say that?

Drew

-----Original Message-----
From: John W. Colby [mailto:jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 1:35 PM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy


LOL, yea, you gotta watch Drew.  He writes specs for MS in his spare time.
;-)

John W. Colby
www.ColbyConsulting.com 

Contribute your unused CPU cycles to a good cause:
http://folding.stanford.edu/

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Nicholson, Karen
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 2:05 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy


So now the REAL truth comes out, trickling like an icicle melting in the
sun.  Smart a*!

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of DWUTKA at marlow.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 1:13 PM
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy


Very true!

Admittedly, my application has a VB front end, so it only connects when
necessary.  We have about 120+ machines using it.....

Drew

-----Original Message-----
From: John Bartow [mailto:john at winhaven.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 11:58 AM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy


Drew,
I support a number of Access programs that I haven't written and I can
assure yoou that many of these are lucky to get through ONE concurrent user!

:o)

There is a lot of Access based junk out there and a lot of nimrods who think
they know what they're doing with it.

John B. 

 


-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of DWUTKA at marlow.com
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 2:16 PM
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy

Hey, I've had over 100 concurrent users, and didn't have a glitch!

Drew

-----Original Message-----
From: John Bartow [mailto:john at winhaven.net]
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 1:23 PM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy


No, M$ tested it with little bird poopey uses connected concurrently and
they could only get up to 127 users. They used flea poopey to get 255.
:o)

John B. 

 


-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Nicholson, Karen
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 12:26 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy

Yeah, but the guy paid over $10,000 for the system.  He wants that back.
What can you do when Microsoft claims that Access can handle 255 concurrent
database connections at one time?  We all know that is just bird-poopey.

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Brett Barabash
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 1:13 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy


Karen,
First of all, if the total loss is $3000, this is clearly a small claims
court issue.  A civil court won't hear a case under $5K, and it wouldn't be
worth it for the client to pay a lawyer to recover such a small amount. Of
course, explaining dumbing down the evidence for a small claims court is no
small task.

Secondly, there is the legal concept of mitigation of loss.  The client will
be burdened with the task of proving that they didn't know about the bug six
months ago.  If it can be proven that they did know about it and said
nothing, the actual amount of damage will be greatly reduced.

And finally, if this can be proven to be a Microsoft technology issue
(security flaw, data corruption bug, etc.), and it is documented
(knowledgebase, 3rd party journals, etc.), it should be easy for the
developer to prove that they were not at fault.  I have gone down this exact
road with a MS solution provider for way more than $3000.  After we reviewed
the facts, it was clear to us that the problem was with the product, not the
consultant.  So sue Bill instead (oh, and good luck with all that!).
 

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Nicholson, Karen
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 11:13 AM
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: [AccessD] Time for More Legal Discussion - Oh Boy

What happens when a program is written for a customer using Microsoft
Technology, and the Microsoft Technology is bad - its data, its logic. It
has cost this one client, he claims, $3000 in lost revenue and he wants the
payment for the system refunded plus damages.  The user never notified said
programmer that there was a problem even though they have been using it for
a good six months.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
The information in this email may contain confidential information that is
legally privileged. The inform

recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of
any action in regard to the content of this email is strictly prohibited. If
transmission is incorrect, unclear, or incomplete, please notify the sender
immediately. The authorized recipient(s) of this information is/are
prohibited from disclosing this information to any other party and is/are
required to destroy the information after its stated need has been
fulfilled.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifies and with authority, states them to be the
views of Tappe Construction Co.

This footer also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the
presence of computer viruses.Scanning of this message and addition of this
footer is performed by SurfControl E-mail Filter software in conjunction
with virus detection software.

--
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
--
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com

--
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
--
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com

-- 
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
-- 
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
-- 
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com



-- 
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com



More information about the AccessD mailing list