![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-3938-100x100.png\")
All I can picture is Homer Simpson (or, say, me) reading that last sentence:
\"Any claims, legal proceeding or litigation arising in connection with the magicJack device or Software will be resolved by binding arbitration....\"
Doh!
\"....in Palm Beach, Florida.\"
WOO HOO! Kids, we're goin' to Miami!!!!!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-545239-100x100.png\")
That article taught me a new word: obloquy.
Pronunciation: \\ˈä-blə-kwē\\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ob·lo·quies
Etymology: Middle English obloquie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin obloquium, from obloqui to speak against, from ob- against + loqui to speak
Date: 15th century
1 : a strongly condemnatory utterance : abusive language
2 : the condition of one that is discredited : bad repute
Thanks for the SLAPP lawsuit MagicJack! You expanded my vocabulary through your use of intimidating legal actions. :D
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Though not exactly a new word, I giggled at the word \"dongle.\" Yes, I'm ten years old.
Everyone should try to use the word \"dongle\" at least once a day.
\"Dongle\" is a legitimately funny word. I will defend that without shame.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1528990-100x100.png\")
MagicJack should be magictap.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1524334-100x100.png\")
MagicJack should be NotMagicJack
yukka yukka
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6170-100x100.png\")
Cory Doctorow always wears a red cape and goggles when he's blogging.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-258636-100x100.png\")
...from his hot air balloon.
Yawn. I'm sorry did I miss something?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-590531-100x100.png\")
Two things:
1.) The part where a litigious company failed miserably in an attempt to silence a consumer-protecting blog post, and
2.) The Consumerist Comments Code (http://consumerist.com/comments-code/) where it says \"No junk comments\" \"Your comment should be a meaningful response to the issue raised in the post.\"
I can understand people paying for something so that they don't have to see ads (or rather, as many ads), but I cannot understand people paying for something so that they can get barraged with more ads.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1004377-100x100.png\")
There are ways around the ads.. A bit of Googling and a modicum of tech savvy does wonders.
The product has Magic in the name. That is an \"As seen on TV\" name as it gets. I doubt the eventual cure for Cancer will be called MagicCure. Or Toyota's new car the MagicBox.
All this chatter about ads, and after almost two years with a Magic Jack, I have yet to actually see any ads at all. Admittedly I don't use the thing that often but there are no ads. No popups. Nothing much really, just a GUI for the software. It does have a space where they offer international calling... maybe that's an ad?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-169958-100x100.png\")
can anyone say \"Streisand effect\"?
Are they talking about being able to use this as a loophole around the do not call list for telemarketing purposes? If so this would really stink.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-107016-100x100.png\")
SLAPP and binding arbitration at once, its like a Consumerist Xmas.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6536-100x100.png\")
I don't understand suing someone for something that is not only completely true but something you yourself made public information. They put it in the EULA, the thing they tell you you're SUPPOSED to read.
How do you justify getting mad at someone for actually reading it?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-309558-100x100.png\")
I think it was stupid of them to sue over this. That said, I've been a very happy MagicJack customer for 2 years now, and have no complaints about the service.
Why does the thing have to have ads to work? Why do ads have to come up everywhere?
There's obviously no technical reason why it needs ads. VoIP works just fine without ads.
If I were inclined to give MagicJack leeway, I'd say they meant ads are necessary for the device's *continued* functioning. As in, without them, the company won't be profitable, and the device will stop working, so you better pay attention to those ads, see?
TANSTAAFL. MagicJack customers don't want to pay what voip service really costs, so they deal with ads. I wonder if calls TO your MagicJack number are subject to ads also, or just the outbound ones you make...