So "Californiated" ARs are okay?
Posted on 05/30/2019 6:17:30 PM PDT by Little Pig
So "Californiated" ARs are okay?
Excellent post.
Your example is flawed because thats not what is happening here.
Because in your example you would not sell anything to those people in the first place. These aholes did sell them something and now they are trying to use a deliverately vague clause to retroactively demand something of a business that has nothing to do with their product.
Delay new installs and mods. Big cash flow item ans someone at the top will be screaming.
To refresh my memory, I just reviewed their MASTER SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT and there is nothing there that limits what customers can sell on the SFDC platform.
HOWEVER, I just reviewed their Acceptable Use and External-Facing Services Policy which was last updated April 11, 2019 and found this:
Worldwide, customers may not use a Service to transact online sales of any of the following firearms and/or related accessories to private citizens. Firearms: automatic firearms; semi-automatic firearms that have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any of the following: thumbhole stock, folding or telescoping stock, grenade launcher or flare launcher, flash or sound suppressor, forward pistol grip, pistol grip (in the case of a rifle) or second pistol grip (in the case of a pistol), barrel shroud; semi-automatic firearms with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds; ghost guns; 3D printed guns; firearms without serial numbers; .50 BMG rifles; firearms that use .50 BMG ammunition. Firearm Parts: magazines capable of accepting more than 10 rounds; flash or sound suppressors; multi-burst trigger devices; grenade or rocket launchers; 80% or unfinished lower receivers; blueprints for ghost guns; blueprints for 3D printed guns; barrel shrouds; thumbhole stocks; threaded barrels capable of accepting a flash suppressor or sound suppressor.
Point taken. I agree after the fact on something as complicated as software integration. But you should not have to sell something to someone if you don’t wish to.
It's easy to export your data (that you own) from the SFDC platform. It is also easy to set up a competing system and load that data into the new system. It will take some time and there will be some expense (depending on how much of the SFDC tools a customer is using). Retraining people will probably be the biggest expense. Integrations of SFDC tools to other platforms could be the real pain point. And some SFDC tools are hard to replicate on other platforms. It all depends how much of their system you are using.
They should just start selling only AR-10’s. Better caliber anyway. ;-)
They should just start selling only AR-10’s. Better caliber anyway. ;-)
The approach they use is very common in subscription services and completely legal. Customers accept this. It's been common practice at the subscription services firms I worked for. Lawyers are not going to "end up owning SalesForce." Here is the pertinent clause from the SFDC Acceptable Use and External-Facing Services Policy.
3. Changes to PolicyThat link takes you to the top-level SFDC page. You have to then sift through hundreds of documents to see what changed.SFDC may change this Policy by posting an updated version of the Policy at www.salesforce.com and such updates will be effective upon posting.
I just had a great conversation. I told them I wanted to know what business they did in western Canada because I wanted to make sure nobody was using their software. He was trying to explain that it’s his opinion that nobody needs a military style weapon in America and people are being gunned down. That was comical, I then proceeded to educate him on the actual facts, and a big one being that hands and feet are the biggest culprit by far than anything else. I also proceeded to ask him if it’s ok to defend your home with a single shot .22, he said sure, then what if there are four home invaders, then what? There was a lot of stammering on his end. I then educated him on what happened to the Bosniacs who disarmed and what happened to them based on my firsthand experiences. He did say he’s had a lot of calls and I was the most polite one though. heh.
666
Best thing to do is get an injunction with intent to go to civil trial with Salesforce.
You can’t win the trial, they’ve got you on the customer agreement. What you can do is cost them a ton of money in legal fees and buy time to switch to a competing product.
The chart I pulled up on sales force seemed not very impressive. Not sure if this a significant player or not.
Nice job!
I don’t think this was a purposeful outcome, but it is now an obvious vulnerability of the subscription model of software. Companies pay to lease and customize software they no longer own. The software companies are geographically concentrated in an area politically monolithic, activist and intolerant of dissenting viewpoints. those software companies will be filled with people look to leverage their products as tools of activism.
If a company is faced with this, I truly think and hope that they could call on Salesforce to refund all of their development costs, plus maybe compensate them for their damages, Seems to me there’s got to be some commerce clause is or laws that would protect companies from this type of constraint of business or discrimination.
Salesforce is everywhere. This is like AmericanExpress saying cardholders cannot buy guns with their cards. Suspect move like that not far off.
Time to tell Salesforce to go to hell and find a conservative software company who will do business with them.
Also, might be grounds for a lawsuit re “fraud” in that Salesforce sold them goods and services under false pretenses. They changed the rules in the middle of a contract, and that is illegal and actionable.
Time to sue the balls off these leftist pricks and nail them to the courthouse wall.
Configuring the software, adapting your company to it, training your staff, to use salesforce is incredibly expensive, for many companies this could be millions of dollars down the drain. That is an expense it should be turned back on salesforce to refund, plus the damages involved in lost business during the transition off of salesforce or if they cut someone off entirely. I truly hope this puts salesforce out of business or that they reverse this very quickly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.