Yep, now you can buy a computer, digital camera, etc, that comes with a coupon for $400 off if you buy a three year MSN service.
However, in Calif, for example, laws make it so you can cancel your MSN and pay NO penalty!..
Here is the article. Best Buy had hundreds of people in line today:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2000/01/05/financial1724EST0081.DTL
There was a note on the net tonite to the effect that MS has canceled the program because people were taking the rebate and then dumping the service the next day. Mr. Bill is looking for a way to close the loophole.
JB
Lex Non Favet Delicatorum Votis
I was looking around on the net yesterday & I can no longer find any of the $400 internet rebates for computers. Not even for the other ISP’s. weird.
It was pretty lame of him to offer the rebate and not stipulate that you had to use the service for the whole time. That’s what Compaq and the other computer companies are doing. Seems like it should be obvious.
“I’m the luckiest man in the world, now that Lou Gehrig is dead.” Homer Simpson
He did stipulate exactly that. The problem is that California law is so progressive that it doesn’t recognize a corporations right to make a profit. In this case - they basically allow a person to break a contract they made with a big bad corporation.
Cool!
Peace,
mangeorge
Wow, 00, I made it! 
How can you call a law progressive that screws a company and does not allow it to make a profit?
I call it stupid whether it is against Microsoft or anyone else.
Jeffery
California isn’t keeping Microsoft or anyone from earning a profit. California and Oregon have laws that invalidate contracts that condition rebates on subsequent behaviour by the consumer. Microsoft knew this, issued the offer noting it wasn’t valid in CA and OR, then apparently didn’t consider that consumers would be smart enough to figure out the ‘free’ money inherent in the offer.
I got a better description. They were offering a ‘purchase credit’ of $400.00& MSN not
a real rebate. Calif law does NOT allow a comp that loans you money to make you buy something. [Pretty logical, eh?]
So Best Buy sold you a computer, gave you the $400 credit, andyou could walk out with it
for $150.00 then cancel MSN. MSN says few people cancelled. Odd thing is I was searching the net today and this has been avialable for quite some time.
Well, I should have done a [sarcasm] progressive [/sarcasm] to make my opinion clear - but in California this generally fits the bill for ‘progressive’ legislation. The term ‘progressive’ as currently understood in relation to politics really has no relation to the word ‘progress’ as understood by most english speakers - but rather indicates the degree to which the given state has been socialized.
In other words, the closer you are to socialism the more progessive you are. Dig?
Cooper:
So, by progressive, you mean, progressing away from the Ayn Rand world, where Gobal Mega Corp. makes the rules, and people, those lucky enough, are given jobs by Uber Mensch, who are so much smarter/better than everyone that they deserve, no, have a god given right, to control peoplr.
Well, hot damn. Let us progress far far away from that.
And actually, you miss the point.
It’s irrelevant what California law prohibits. It could nullify all deal made for the purchase a shag carpet which invole a lease-to-own option. Does this make California evil, or anti-corporation? No, it just means that if you’re selling shag carpet, you shouldn’t offer lease to own options. If you decide to offer a contract for something unenforceable, tough.
It’s like the law saying that if someone sends you a product that you didn’t ask for, and tries to bill you, that you don’t have to pay. This isn’t an anticorporation law, this is an anti dirty-tactic law, which only affects corporations trying to cheat people.
Ditto with the loan/forced sale law. It’s a law saying that certain conditions can’t be imposed on people you loan money to. Wah. This is like limited the maximum interest you can charge.
Sure, maybe this does limit a few corporate options. But, frankly, if the only way a corporation can survive is by doing these things, they’re not a company I care to have around.
And if they offer a deal like that, knowing full well it’s not enforceable, why shouldn’t people take advantage of it?
MS has certainly done their fair share of lying, in particular, they lie about shrinkwrap licenses, trying to convince people that this hidden contract you don’t see, or know about, until you’ve bought the software is valid. And they’re not unwilling to profit unfairly, or demand right they don’t have.
But, this is anti-corporation, because it denies them a perfectly valid way to make money, sell a product, any product, with a hidden contract, and then force people to comply with the contract or sue them. I mean, it’s just as anti-corporation to keep them from using this as it is to keep them from offering loans conditional on future purchases.