Company Bricks User's Software After He Posts a Negative Review

[newtekie1]

A user, Jim, of Ham Radio Deluxe wasn't too happy with its apparent incompatibility with Microsoft Office. He posted a negative review of the software at eHam.net, calling out the company for its seeming unwillingness to fix the underlying issue. The user also opened a support ticket with HRD Software hoping it could solve his problems.

HRD Software replied to the ticket, telling the user to download a patch for the malfunctioning software. Seems normal enough. But more problems developed.

[SIGQUOTE]I've tried to install the update according to your directions. Now when I click on the HRD icon, I get the splash screen from version 6.3.0.610 for about a second, and then it disappears and nothing else happens...[/SIGQUOTE]

The company's response?

[sigquote]We would also like to request that you NOT RENEW your support nor use our software due to the review you placed on eHam back in September. Remember that? http://www.eham.net/reviews/review/143372

If you remove the eHam review, which was blatantly false, we will remove the blacklist from you call. You are not buying software, you are buying your callsign's access to the software...[/sigquote]

On page 3 of the support ticket, the co-owner of HDR, Rick, begins responding to the support ticket. It is Rick that informed the user that he will remove the user from the blacklist if he removes the review. Rick then starts threatening the user with legal actions.

[sigquote]we put nothing on your computer, we put you on a blacklist in the code.

See you in court.[/sigquote]


This was the first mention of legal action. The user also reports that Rick actually called him, and left at least one threatening voicemail threatening him with legal action, the user posts about this on page 38 of the QRZ.com forum thread about he issue.

And with that, HRD Software set its reputation on fire. A long thread at QRZ.com is the ham enthusiast forum's version of Sherman's March to the Sea, with HRD being razed to the ground like so many antebellum mansions.

But there's a twist: 37 pages into into this forum's discussion of HRD's brutally inept handling of a customer complaint, the other co-owner of the company wades into the fray and tries to apologize. On page 38 of the thread, Rick, chimes in and also apologizes, blaming his mood swing on his diabetes.(Side note: I have diabetes, and I'll tell you that is a completely BS excuse. He would have been better going with the Mel Gibson defense.)

Is it enough? The other co-owner, Rick, seems to be the one throwing the fuel on the woodpile, and when it caught fire they panicked. It is pretty clear the company's policy was to blacklist anyone that posts a bad review. This type of behavior is completely unacceptable.


Whole Story Can Be Read Here.

Update: HDR has released a press release found here(PDF) stating the co-owner Rick will be leaving the company. Of course they don't mention the real reason, but that's to be expected.

 

[dorsetknob]

ME THINKS THIS IS AN INFRINGEMENT OF

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to
ect
lawyer UP AND sue

 

[sneekypeet]

No different than what went down with IC Diamond. Just because you run a company does not mean you have common sense!

 

[EarthDog]

No different than what went down with IC Diamond. Just because you run a company does not mean your employees have tact

fixed!

 

[rtwjunkie]

ME THINKS THIS IS AN INFRINGEMENT OF
View attachment 82599
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to
ect
lawyer UP AND sue

Actually no infringement. That covers laws and governmental action, not private companies, unless it causes injury (such as screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theatre).

Unless you are being facetious? If so, then by all means keep truckin'.

The Amendment was the new nation's reaction to the heavyhanded British Governors not allowing the press in the American Colonies to say what they wanted about the other actions which they felt were unfair.

 

[dorsetknob]

Not a Dollar chasing ShitSharklawyer but Company's like this by demanding you remove comments Are infringing your Rights to Free Speach

 

[Silas Woodruff]

Of course an apology is not enough, he claims whatever he downloaded also affects other programs, therefore I think legal action is appropriate.

It's not cool for them to give him a link and mess with his computer claiming that whatever they downloaded is the fix for their problem....

 

[Totally]

ME THINKS THIS IS AN INFRINGEMENT OF
View attachment 82599
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to
ect
lawyer UP AND sue

The constitution only applies between the citizen and the governing body. Unless they are receiving government funds, bringing up amendment rights is just looking to get laughed at in this situation since this does not apply at all and shows a lack of understanding. The reason for blacklisting and the ensuing quid pro quo does present a strong case for discrimination/harassment and the legality of this is for the courts to decide since from the sound of the article he never paid the software that the company blacklisted him from.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Not a Dollar chasing ShitSharklawyer but Company's like this by demanding you remove comments Are infringing your Rights to Free Speach

What they did was lowdown dirty and wrong, but it is not a Free Speech issue.

Many people, including Americans, tend to think that right is much more encompassing than it really is.

 

[newtekie1]

fixed!

Not really. In both cases, it was the owner of the company causing the problems.

 

[cdawall]

Either way can't blacklist someone for posting a negative review. Sounds like a good flag for the BBB.

 

[EarthDog]

That was the owner that replied there?!!! I thought it was a tech, then the owner came in later... wow. Sad.

 

[rtwjunkie]

That was the owner that replied there?!!! I thought it was a tech, then the owner came in later... wow. Sad.

Two owners, appearing to not be on the same page, but more likely that's how they do business on purpose.

 

[newtekie1]

Either way can't blacklist someone for posting a negative review. Sounds like a good flag for the BBB.

Definite flag for the BBB, but according to the EULA they actually an blacklist someone for any reason. Coffee cold? Lets blasklist some users!

Two owners, appearing to not be on the same page, but more likely that's how they do business on purpose.

It appears the owner that apologized has no dealing with the day to day operation of the company. He is just an investor that now has to play cleanup for the bad practices of the owner that was in charge.

 

[Mr.Scott]

BBB is worthless.
Social media has much more impact. Take it to the people.

 

[cdawall]

Definite flag for the BBB, but according to the EULA they actually an blacklist someone for any reason. Coffee cold? Lets blasklist some users!

My fix for situations like this? Someone should mail them a bag of shit.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

If this ends up in court (probably small claims), HRD is going to end up paying "Jim" the value of the software, court fees, and the hundreds/thousands on top of that for the threats and blacklisting.

The only way a review can be used against you in court is if there are false statements made in it (defamation). The plaintiff has to prove the statements are false at the time they were authored. The review mostly talks about "known issues" HRD can't fix or refuses to fix. I can't see defamation going anywhere.

BBB is worthless.
Social media has much more impact. Take it to the people.

BBB only works on businesses that care about customer relations. I get a strong impression HRD does not.

 

[newtekie1]

That was the owner that replied there?!!! I thought it was a tech, then the owner came in later... wow. Sad.

It was originally handled by a tech, named Tim I think. The tech originally did the blacklisting, and then replied about the review in the support ticket. Then, in the support ticket, the owner Rick chimed in and confirmed that the blacklist was because of the review. Apparently Rick is the owner actually running the show, and he made the policy to blacklist anyone that speaks out negatively about the software. Rick also directly called the user and made legal threats on the user's voicemail.

So, yeah, this isn't a case of an employee acting outside of the company's wishes. This is an employee doing exactly what the owner of the company told them to do.

 

[dorsetknob]

but anyway what kind of person do you have to be to complain about a paid service that you are using for free? So it was well within their right to blacklist the guy after they noticed that he did not pay for the software

Your wrong i suspect you did not read or comprehend the Story in OP post ( link in 1st post )
let me c/p relevent part you Missed or deliberatly got wrong

""I purchased HRD 6.3, only to find out Windows XP was not supported. So, I installed HRD on a brand new Windows 10 machine, and everything appeared to be working fine. Then, I installed Office 365, and it broke the LogBook. Known problem, they say. There is a whole page devoted to telling you how to tweak the registry, download things, repair files, etc, etc.""

I purchased = He paid for it and so its not Free and he is not using it for FREE

 

[Totally]

Your wrong i suspect you did not read or comprehend the Story in OP post ( link in 1st post )
let me c/p relevent part you Missed or deliberatly got wrong

""I purchased HRD 6.3, only to find out Windows XP was not supported. So, I installed HRD on a brand new Windows 10 machine, and everything appeared to be working fine. Then, I installed Office 365, and it broke the LogBook. Known problem, they say. There is a whole page devoted to telling you how to tweak the registry, download things, repair files, etc, etc.""

I purchased = He paid for it and so its not Free and he is not using it for FREE

Oops, I misinterpreted the their response "You are not buying software, you are buying your callsign's access to the software...” Sorry . I thought they were calling him out. No, no need to jump on me like that.

 

[R-T-B]

ME THINKS THIS IS AN INFRINGEMENT OF
View attachment 82599
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to
ect
lawyer UP AND sue

Sadly, it's not an infringement of the first amendment, because they aren't passing a law, but licensing software they have the sole rights to.

It's a dick move, but the First Amendment has nothing to say on this.

EDIT: I see I was beat to the punch on this.

 

[dorsetknob]

It's a dick move, but the First Amendment has nothing to say on this.

you under estimate the sick twisted moral less Virtual less Attributes of the American Laywer and their dollar grubbing mindset
A Company putting Pressure on some one to change their Opinion is Oppressing Free Speach
or are you saying only governments can oppress/deny Free Speach
if that is the Case i pity you after the inauguration coming up Soon

 

[Jetster]

First off. It is a dick move. But the BBB has no authority (can damage the reputation) and its completely within the companies right to do business with who they choose, as long as it does not discriminate any protected groups. Now I guess you cold argue in civil court that it is extortion, then As far as remove the review. But now way is it a violation of any civil rights

 

[rtwjunkie]

or are you saying only governments can oppress/deny Free Speach

Yes, my man, that is what he is saying. Did you miss the previous two responses, which he acknowledges?

In the U.S., free speech protection is only afforded to people in regard to it not being disallowed or curtailed by law or governmental decree.

Basically, a private entity, unless acting "under the color of law" cannot violate a person's civil rights.

 

[dorsetknob]