Pay it or lose it

You may have no need to prove your claim ... but by the rules of logic your claim is INVALID until proven.

You've merely cited examples of your own, and other failures, without proving that it can't be done. As John Pollard tried to explain to you, it only takes a SINGLE example to disprove your theory.

What bullshit. So, since SOME have flown to the moon, ANYONE can? Fuck you and the wagon you rode in on.

You really don't know much logic. All you need to show a claim isn't valid is one situation where the hypotheses hold but the conclusion doesn't.

I'm glad you mentioned OpenOffice. I actually use LibreOffice, an OpenOffice offshoot.

I have found that Libreoffice does everything I need for it to do, and more.

So it would be a good thing if I didn't listen to your comment that one shouldn't use OpenOffice. Otherwise I'd still be stuck using MS Office.

Based upon that, I'd take your bashing of non-Quicken products as similarly unsubstantiated for my use cases.

I made no such comment, I said OpenOffice (and Libreoffice) claim compatibility with MS Office and they are NOT compatible.

If you use either OO or LO to open and modify MS Office files, particularly Excel files, you'll likely lose formatting. In a work from home situation this makes it impossible to open a file, modify it and send it back if you're going between OO/LO and MS Office.

Again, you're reading in what's not there.

Once again, you're bashing Open Office for use cases that I do not have, or that I do have and have no issues with.

So I'll take you bashing of Quicken replacements with a similar grain of salt.

replying to Bob W., Charles wrote: Here's a thought. I'm a retired database designer and DBA. Microsoft has a free single-user version of their SQL Server database system, and I have used SQL Server databases for many years. I'll help with database design and SQL code development for creating a new personal financial system. I have no idea about the other OS ramifications of this, but it might be worth looming into by any of you versed in those systems. Probably even if we started the effort, we might get the new owners interested in taking acre of us better.

replying to John Pollard, Charles wrote: Well, I create the .CSV files for importing into my SQL Server database FROM Q. Sorry for the confusion there.

Unfortunately, the single account that the download messed up is one for which I can't yet find my paper records after a state-to-state relocation after retiring. That's why I'm scanning and archiving all my records. Takes lots less space, and I keep multiple backups.

replying to Sharx35, Charles wrote: The above indicates I wrote that reply, but I don't think it was mine. Maybe a bug in the web site? I may be getting old but I wouldn't forget 'spineless apologists'. Haven't used that word in many years.

Which word: "spineless" or "apologists"?

replying to Sherlock, Charles wrote: " My understanding from Quicken is that your data will be in read-only mode and you can't modify it *in Quicken* if you wish not to renew the subscription. Big difference. Frankly, I'm surprised at those who think that after a product subscription expires, they can continue to use the product as if it didn'"

When I PURCHASED my current version 2014, there were no subscription terms. If they should try to lock me out now, I would think it would be breeching the purchase agreement. Sounds like a class action in the making.

Read the fine print on the box....I don't have mine for 2014, but the

2016 reads "Intuit reserves the right to modify, discontinue, or impose conditions of any feature or aspect of the software, online services or support, including but not limited to terms, conditions, features, availability, pricing, fees, online services, and support options".

You signed up for these. As they said, if you don't like it, "...then do not indicate acceptance of the Agreement and do not use the Software.".

btw, you did NOT "purchase" Quicken, Intuit licensed you for usage. Read the EULA,

Now, I don't like the implications of what I read might happen, only pointing out that I think they can legally do whatever they want to do in this regard.

"Charles" wrote

When I PURCHASED my current version 2014, there were no subscription terms. If they should try to lock me out now, I would think it would be breeching the purchase agreement. Sounds like a class action in the making.

----------------------------------------------------------

My bet is that you have no legal case ... even if Quicken applies the lockout to Q2014 (for example): see Andrew's comments from earlier today.

But I don't recall seeing any evidence in this discussion that the restriction on modifying your existing Quicken data will apply to any Quicken versions other than versions that are subscription based. Meaning that users will know explicitly, when they purchase those new Quicken subscription versions, that they will be locked out, if they fail to upgrade; while users of older, pre-subscription, versions will not be locked out.

Does anyone have information that demonstrates otherwise?

John, I tend to follow your interpretation. HOWEVER, I, for one, do NOT have a law degree. I'd feel much more confident seeing a post from someone who has a law degree who has gone over all the fine print AND is familiar, VERY familiar, with the applicable statutes and precedents, either in Canada or the U.S..

More on that issue: just because Quicken's owner or successor owner, puts something on the package does NOT, repeat NOT, mean that it is necessarily supportable by law in any jurisdiction.

That may be true. Do you wish to pony up the dollars to hire a law firm to see? If not, does anyone else? I doubt it.

From a general discussion on the topic elsewhere: "My brother in law is a lawyer and I just asked him about whether an EULA is a legally binding contract. He said that if it states specifically in the EULA that by clicking the accept button, you agree to everything in the contract, then yes, it is in fact legally binding. It WILL hold up in court too if there was ever a need for it. An EULA is no different than a contract a movie star agrees to when they are hired to shoot a movie. Just because you don't physically sign something, it is still legally binding. However if you are not forced to look at and click accept on the EULA before using a product, then it is not legally binding. Hereis somethingI found while doing some digging after I talked to him.

I point you to this paragraph in particular, under the section "Shrink Wrap and Click Wrap Licenses":

Further, in ProCD v. Zeidenberg, the license was ruled enforceable because it was necessary for the customer to assent to the terms of the agreement by clicking on an "I Agree" button in order to install the software. In Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., however, the licensee was able to download and install the software without first being required to review and positively assent to the terms of the agreement, and so the license was held to be unenforceable.

Because Zeidenberg had no choice but to click Accept on the EULA before using the product, then it is a valid legal contract. However Specht was able to use the software without first agreeing to the EULA, and thus the EULA is not legally binding. I also found out that if a minor child clicks Accept on an EULA and then does something to violate the terms, the parent or legal guardian then takes full responsibilty. Anyway just wanted to clear that up."

That is what class actions are for.

Any contract, or portions thereof, can be held to be unenforceable for a variety of reasons.

I think if Q were to turn off all functions, rendering the software totally unusable, after a period of a few years, there would be a class action and that action by Q would be held to be illegal and any EULA clauses stating otherwise would be limited by the court.

"Taxed and Spent" wrote

Any contract, or portions thereof, can be held to be unenforceable for a variety of reasons.

I think if Q were to turn off all functions, rendering the software totally unusable, after a period of a few years, there would be a class action and that action by Q would be held to be illegal and any EULA clauses stating otherwise would be limited by the court.

-------------------------------------------------------------

More wishful thinking. Pretending that Quicken does not have lawyers guiding it's actions is pitting a misbegotten hope against reality.

Still waiting for evidence that non-subscription versions will be subject to the restriction.

As uninformed as the legal-issue comments in this discussion already are: without that evidence, those comments are totally worthless.

Big companies have lawyers giving advise, but business people make the decisions. My legal comments we not "uninformed".

You are correct in that there is no inkling that non-subscription versions will have any issues other than the known-in-advance limited period where downloads will be supported.