Well, by "not a scam", I was thinking "not illegal", or not fraud in the legal sense.
Yes, it's sleazy. Yes, they're taking advantage of people who don't know better. However, there is nothing to prevent it except a certain level of self-interest on the part of the customer. It's been that way since the first business and customer, and it always will be.
I don't see a phone # nor the guarantee that you saw.
I didn't see that; I only thought I had heard it. Sorry.
I may have heard it from someone who wrote to complain and they made the offer; or I may be completely mistaken. Given the kind of business they've set up, I wouldn't expect them to promote a "money-back" policy. OTOH, you certainly won't get it if you don't ask.
My last thought is to wonder why Google allows itself to be complacent here, and why Sun / OOo have not taken this up with Google.
Eh? Google is complacent because OOo-suite is a paying customer (the top Google spot must cost them a pretty penny) and Google is never going to start arbitrating between an advertiser and their customer. I suppose if there were enough complaints, Google might do something, but if there were that much awareness, the OOo-suite weasels would probably be out of business anyway.
On what legal grounds would Sun complain? Beyond that, what would be their motivation? I don't think they're worried about losing sales of OO.org.
It seems to me that when you use a product that costs nothing: you aren't a customer in the usual sense. The distributor of software that has zero cost also has zero commitment toward the interests of users of that software. Sun has some commitment to the people who pay for Star Office. If the OOo-suite people were trying to skim off Star Office customers, I expect Sun would be interested enough to set the lawyers loose. What commitment should they have to people who download OOo and use it for free?