Posted on 05/30/2019 6:17:30 PM PDT by Little Pig
Business software maker Salesforce is telling gun retailers they must stop selling AR-15s if they want to continue using the company’s business applications.
The Washington Post reports that Salesforce is a $120 billion San Francisco-based company whose “skyscraper…towers over the city as the tallest building and a major landmark.”
They are now telling customers who sell firearms that they are barred from using Salesforce “technology to market products, manage customer service operations and fulfill orders” unless they cease selling AR-15s.
Salesforce’s “Acceptable Use Policy” goes beyond a ban on AR-15s, to include any semiautomatic 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), [and/or] barrel shroud.”
The policy also makes clear that gun retailers cannot sell “high capacity” magazines if they want to use Salesforce software.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Ping
Salesforce Customer service:
1 (800) 667-6389
Other software sellers will appreciate the business.
How is it their business?
No doubt, there’s a clause buried deep within the software use license that essentially says “we can take this away from you at any time for any reason or no reason”.
And yet, no prohibition on bayonet lugs.
How many more must die in drive-by bayonetings before those evil “a salt” weapon accessories are banned?
So their terms of service allow them to retroactively change their terms of service?
Lawyers are going to end up owning SalesForce.
So companies should ask for their development costs back. Boycott Salesforce.
Have fun enforcing that in court guys...
They cant legally do this for those selling a legal product.
I hope they get so sued so freaking hard into the poor house they wish they never heard the term “virtue signalling”.
"...Salesforce.com..."
I presume Salesforce does not have armed guards at their facilities nor would they call police who might be carrying fully automatic “evil” black guns.
Great opportunity for “Black Rifle Software”
Is Salesforce going to tell people to stop going to doctors? Medical mistakes kill far more people each year than guns do. In fact, hammers kill far more people than guns do. Or to stay out of dangerous liberal-run cities that have high crime rates?
See my post 6. They’re not changing anything. The language is certainly already in their software license anyway. It’s not spelled out like this, but instead will be written in a way that they can do whatever they want.
I think this is significant for the unfortunates who use Salesforce software. Companies spend a huge amount and become integrated with the software as a core operating environment. Changing software could be a ruinous expense. On the other hand, such high handed virtue signaling will undoubtedly be a factor for a large number of potential users of Salesforce software in the future. If they can arbitrarily do this to the sellers of one product, what about the sellers of other products that might suddenly become SKW targets? There is some interesting information on Salesforce at the link.
https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-big-companies-use-Salesforce-CRM
Yeah, these general deliberately vauge god clauses often get shot down in courts because of this exact type of thing. Restrictions are often deemed to be specific as to avoid this exact abuse by the party making up the contract for its favor.
Its one of the reasons prenups can also get shot down.
They won’t need to take anyone to court. They just cut them off from support. I haven’t checked, but Salesforce CRM may even be a subscription model, which means Salesforce can just void those subscriptions, and the customer’s server stops functioning. At a minimum, badthink customers won’t be allowed to renew their licenses at true-up time, and all support would be cut off immediately.
So they decided not to enforce it until the companies had invested millions of dollars in implementation costs and THEN enforce it?
Sounds like bait-and-switch. I thought that was illegal?
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.