3 users licence

Some vendors started to offer licence for 3 users for a price of one.

Panda, McAfee, F-prot and Trenmicro have these as I remember.. anybody else?

 

NAV not same price, but sometimes offerred free AFTER rebates

 

Question - I have the 2005 version of Trend Micro IS that I have not yet installed. If I upgrade to the 2007 version will I get 3 licenses or 1 ? The 2007 version appears to be licensed for 3 pc's now but the 2005 was licensed for 1.

 

Best ask Trend, but most likely you will receive a license for 3 if you renew with the 2007 version.

 

F-Secure 2007

^Ale

 

Although I am not interested, I got an email today from Panda for the Titanium AV + Firewall 2007 for $29.95, and it can be used on 3PCs. Not a bad price if one wants Panda.

Jerry

 

Yes SYmantec has 3 user licenses but I would warn people to first take a look at the FRAUD activities in reference to disabling valid licenses and asking them to buy more first before I would decide to buy their products. Take a look at what they are currently trying to do to me here first. https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=148743

 

I know that i can use my BullGuard license on 3 pc's.

 

Atomic_Ed,

First off, be more circumspect in your language. This is not an instance that would fall under any reasonable definition of fraud.

Their EULA has statements regarding a finite number of reinstalls. Unfortunately for them, unless they articulate what they mean by "finite" with an integer somewhere else, all that means is you can't perform an infinite number of installs (good luck on trying ).

Your problem appears to be more an issue of miscommunication with support than malice. If you want to solve the problem, you should focus on that while discussing the matter with Symantec support rather than whipping up the emotional content of the situation.

Blue

 

I appreciate your input and yes it is emotional to some extent to get screwed like this. My understanding of fraud, and I am not a lwayer by any means is taking simply from definition of the term as in dictionaries.

Fraud Pronunciation (frôd)
n.
1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2. A piece of trickery; a trick.
3.
a. One that defrauds; a cheat.
b. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.
[Middle English fraude, from Old French, from Latin fraus, fraud-.]

As I said I believe symantecc is doing this to secure further sales and to me fits the 1st definition of fraud in the dictionary. I could be wrong but that is what it appears to me..

 

Atomic_Ed,

I'm not a lawyer either (my father was, and I'm not completely naive on the commercial end of legal things).., but Symantec's main problem with the EULA is that, strictly speaking, the specific term in question is indeterminate, that may or may not be an issue, but it provides you with a clear point of discussion. As to what you want, you really need a clear and constant vision of that. Is it a refund (I'd say unlikely given your purchase date) or a reset on the activations (they should be able to handle this easily once that is firmly established).

Honest, I feel your pain. I'm going around in circles with Apple Computer and their third party contractor now over a reasonably sized rebate. I'm irritated I don't have the check in my hand, but I also know that if I take it out on the line workers, I give them all the reasons they need to blow me off.

At various points, forms which should have been sent weren't (they were flagged down the line), explanations have changed (was it the MacBook or iPod UPC which was "missing"?), rejections citing an already paid instant rebate that were not part of the particular program, and so on. At this point, it will be back in the contractors hands as soon as the lost UPC form that was finally sent arrives in their offices. I've already also had a couple of follow-up calls generated from an email reviewing the entire episode with scanned documentation included that was sent to sjobs@apple.com - obviously this doesn't get your Steve, but it does get a somewhat escalated customer service crew.

I know precisely what my goals are - the rebate check or an equivalent discount applied against some future purchase. That's it. If they can't help me, well, they've lost a customer forever who has already spent upwards of $4k with them over the past two years and would likely spend at nearly that rate in the future. Financially, it makes no sense for them to cut that revenue stream at the margins they work with, but they might. Before this episode, my next personal laptop was to be a MacBook, I'm less sure of that today. Time will tell. It would be easy for me to get overly emotional, but I view that as counterproductive to me achieving my goals.

Best of luck in dealing with Symantec, I do realize it can be a trying situation. Meanwhile, I'll keep my own fingers crossed, since I really would like one of those MacBooks...

Blue

 

Thanks for the informative reply, I really appreciate your input. I agree with you on the need for vision of what I want and to be honest, I just want them to live up to their end by either providing me a refund or by fixing my unusable 400+ day remaining license I paid for, did nothing wrong, but yet can't use. I am not looking to gain anything other than what I already paid for. I would also appreciate it if they stopped trying to sell me more licenses as a possible solution. I will not purchase another license from them when I have a valid one already, regardless of the outcome.

Wow, I am sorry to hear about your Apple experiences and hope that it works out for you in the end. It sure sounds like a tremendous amount of frustration and time investment but it sounds as if there is quite a bit of money involved with your issue which requires the effort to be invested. In my case it isn't the amount of purchase money so much to me as it is the pricipal of their unethical actions. I also personally can not stand to be labeled or assumptions made against my person on things I did not do, such as piracy. In addition to this I believe in providing what is promised or at least an honest best effort between parties. As I mentioned, I really believe this has nothing to do with their concern for piracy in my case, as they can easily look up my long standing customer history and see that I purchase my licenses in good faith. But instead some smug marketing person within scamantec that is misusing their interpretation of the eula to perpetuate the sale of more licenses. Your right about the need for clearity within their statement not infinite can mean you only can install it once if they decide thats their new marketing approach or it could mean 100 times. But by not stating what that number is, they can use it to their advantage which seems to be the case with my situation. Also if you think about it, they say their intent of that statement within the agrement is designed to protect them from piracy, but yet do not specify a set number used to gauge this. They further do not appear to have any means or system in place to prove that a piracy has occured, this then becomes an assumptive process with no datum point or set number of times to gauge it from. So if you really step back and look at this, it becomes pretty clear this is nothing more than a marketing tool to them to sell more.

In the end I really believe that while they may sucker a few poor soles to just buy another license, they will eventually become negatively affected by their actions either legally by some lawyer willing to make a large case against them for their practices, US authorities, or the end users who once awae of what they are doing will simply not buy from them. This is why I am going to make sure my experiences are made public so that others can at least decide whether or not they want to buy from them knowing what can occur if the need to re-install their software. Heck, live update issues can cause the need for multiple re-installs alone. I think that alone also supports the fact they are doing this for further profit. They know when live update gets corrupted you may have to un-install re-install many times to fix it and even have a few utilities to help clean the registry entries between the process.

I do hope they wise up and stop this nonesense and realize that the reason they are there is because of their customers and not the other way around. They should know that creating a solid product along with good customer relations is the way to sell and grow, not by means of unethical practices and ambigous eula statements with no mechanisms to support their said intent.

Well thank you for your sentiments and I do truly hope you get your issues resolved as well.

 

Sry, but why dont you discuss this in that thread you made?

 

eBBox,

A simple reality of life is that sometimes a brief excursion from the nominal topic is both warranted and worthwhile, so long as the original path is reestablished. If anyone is off-topic here, I am. On the other hand, maybe a couple of readers have learned something of use on the way, and that's not a bad thing even if off the nominal topic.

Cheers,

Blue

 

Does NOD32 have the same policy, i.e. three users for the price of one?