forbus@uiucdcsp.Uiuc.ARPA (08/13/85)
I am getting sufficiently tired of Mr. Lerner's constant propagandizing on behalf of his employer that I want to go and burn my copy of 1-2-3. It is the ONLY piece of copy-protected software that I have ever purchased. I deliberated for a month before buying it, precisely because it was protected. Given the attitude I have seen since from Lotus in general and Mr. Lerner in particular I sincerely regret my decision. Many software companies appear to think they have the right to make millions with only little capital cost and effort (compared to, say, hardware manufacturers or chip designers). I have heard numerous complaints that the software industry "cannot survive" without such profits. I do not believe this. The more appropriate model for the software industry is the publishing industry. Publishing houses still make a great deal of money, yet do not speak of "renting books", nor charge ruinous prices for them. I have heard Mr. Learner parrot claims by the organization sponsored by Lotus (and other like-minded software companies) that some massive fraction of programs in use are pirated. I also do not belive this. I purchased every piece of software I use on my micro, OR got it from public domain sources, OR was given it by the authors to review, OR wrote it myself. (I wonder if the existence of the latter two catagories is the source of the bizarre statistics claimed by Lotus and associates?) The same is true for all of my friends and collegues. While I do not doubt that there are pirates, people who routinely use purloined copies, etc., I have trouble believing they make a signficant difference -- why else whould the makers of Final Word, Wordstar 2000, and Cornerstone voluntarily REMOVE copy protection from their products, in response to customer complaints? Do Infocom and Mark of the Unicorn seem like companies that want to go out of business? Clearly there is some disagreement within the industry about the necessity for copy protection. Please do not get me wrong -- except for being copy protected, Lotus 1-2-3 is a fine product. But I'm going to call my software supplier and find out how much SuperCalc III, Release 2 costs these days. Sorcim, as well as many other reasonable software companies, don't see the need for copy protection. I'd rather deal with a company that respects me, assumes I'm honest, and has a more realistic view of what their marketplace is like.
jabusch@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (08/15/85)
There is another option to purchasing Supercalc, if you are interested.
I think Supercalc is a good product, but for those of you out there that must
have Lotus, there was an article on a Lotus look-alike in two of the recent
trade journals. I can't remember the name exactly, but it was indicative of
the fact that it looked like another product already on the market.
I would go that way long before buying Lotus now...
Also, for those ideas that Mr. Lerner described for packages that
give demos or work fine but won't save if you don't have the key... I have
one question: Does this mean that if I have, say, a portable, or two
machines, or have some other reason for having to remove the keyring, and
I then forget to put it back on, that the software might let me work for
two hours and then refuse to save my work? If so, that's just one more
attack on the innocent bystander using less than moral ethics on the vendor's
part to try to get even with pirates!
I am sure that no matter how much software protection you are willing
to put up with, be it keyring or armed guard, no vendor out there is likely
to put any sort of guarantee on it for the time lost due to some programming
bug or feature. That is, how many vendors at this time guarantee their
product to the extent that they will cover your losses due for some reason
to the use of their program? None, that I know of. Now, how many are likely
to change? None, that I know of. As it is, very few of them even guarantee
that their program will work, let alone correctly! Take a look at the license
that comes with 123.
There was an individual who recently claimed that owning software was
equivalent to owning tires for a car, ie: you don't change car tires, so why
change software from CPU to CPU? Well, the same goes there... Tire manufac-
turers give *decent guarantees in writing* for their tires to the buyer!!!
I might be tempted to buy software if it was offered with a reasonable
warantee or something, although I do have to qualify that with 'tempted'.
After all, if I buy a new tire and its tread separates while I am on an
expressway and I total my car, the tire company has a guarantee that will
cover that damage. If I buy software and it blows up and destroys a lot
of files, who's going to do anything? Certainly not the vendor or author
of the program, even though I might have been charged an exhorbitant amount
for it!
Enough said... <disclaimer, disclaimer, disclaimer>
John W. Jabusch
CSNET: jabusch%uiuc@csnet-relay.ARPA
UUCP: {ihnp4,convex,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!jabusch
USENET: ...!{pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!jabusch
ARPA: jabusch@uiuc.arpajabusch@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (08/15/85)
I think we should start calling them "dingles". There are several things that "dingle" reminds me of that are about as desirable as the dongles are. just a silly thought... John Jabusch
slerner@sesame.UUCP (Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner) (08/20/85)
John W. Jabusch writes: > Also, for those ideas that Mr. Lerner described for packages that > give demos or work fine but won't save if you don't have the key... I have > one question: Does this mean that if I have, say, a portable, or two > machines, or have some other reason for having to remove the keyring, and > I then forget to put it back on, that the software might let me work for > two hours and then refuse to save my work? If so, that's just one more > attack on the innocent bystander using less than moral ethics on the vendor's > part to try to get even with pirates! HP currently uses a similar scheme for protecting some of their software. A hardware key is required to run the program. If it is absent, there is a 5 second beep, a full screen warning that work will not be able to be saved or printed, and once the program in entered, a warning flag remains on-screen. If the key is installed, the warning turns off and they are allowed full program access. If someone looses data under this type of system they are either brain-dead or where trying to fake out the protection. > I am sure that no matter how much software protection you are willing > to put up with, be it keyring or armed guard, no vendor out there is likely > to put any sort of guarantee on it for the time lost due to some programming > bug or feature. That is, how many vendors at this time guarantee their > product to the extent that they will cover your losses due for some reason > to the use of their program? None, that I know of. Now, how many are likely > to change? None, that I know of. As it is, very few of them even guarantee > that their program will work, let alone correctly! Take a look at the license > that comes with 123. I don't know why he is so upset. If you look at the warentee of almost ANY product (not just software), incidental and consequential damage liability is specifically waived. Much of this is due to juries holding companies liable for events beyond their control, and awarding large sums of $$$. [Lawyer: My client dropped his hard disk unit 3 floors, and all of his valuble data was lost! Jury: Oh my! Give hime $3M] My personal feeling is that a company _should_ warrent that their product will do essentialy whatever the documents/manuals/adds say it will do, and if not, they will either fix it or refund your money. Maybe if they aren't so nervous about being ripped off and/or sued, they will re-evaluate their policies. -- Opinions expressed are public domain, and do not belong to Lotus Development Corp. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner {genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!slerner {cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!slerner slerner%sesame@harvard.ARPA