kim@mips.UUCP (Kim DeVaughn) (12/31/85)
[ ... go ahead, eat my bits ... ] > Of course, even though I have their buggy Rev 2.x assembler, they won't give > *me* a break on a new revision ... *my* floppy is from Fujitsu, even though > it is says "(c) Microsoft". And it is MICROSOFT that threatens the wrath > of God if I don't abide by *their* license agreement. Talk about having it > "both ways"! Gordon Letwin of Microsoft replies (with no disclaimer, so I assume this is representitive of Microsoft's official policy): >> You don't understand the business arrangement here. Microsoft sold >> Fujitsu the rights to encorporate the MASM code in a product of theirs. *** BEGIN FLAMES *** First, I really don't care about what kind of "deals" were made by Microsoft and Fujitsu concerning the marketing by Fujitsu of the Microsoft MASM product. That is a private business arrangement, which end-users should not have to concern themselves with; in any case, it was NOT disclosed prior to purchase of the product. Secondly, the Microsoft MASM Assembler marketed by Fujitsu is/was NOT "incorporated" into a Fujitsu product. It is/was sold seperately. It was advertised as a Microsoft product, and the only "incorporation" performed by Fujitsu was (I assume) to duplicate the floppy and documentation ... complete with Microsoft's copyright notices, typos, and bugs. >> I have an Audi, and I happen to know that the climate control system >> was designed and built by GM. But I'm not confused over who sold >> me the system, who took the majority of the profit from it, and who is >> responsible for supporting it - its AUDI. If I hear that GM is upgrading >> the system on GM cars, all that tells me is that I can ask AUDI to do >> the same and offer the same upgrade. I realize that GM has no >> responsibility towards me - they sold a design and some parts to another >> company, and that deal - private between the companies - put the whole >> of the support effort on AUDI, in exchange for which they get the bulk >> of the money. I have no explicit or implicit deal with GM - they have no >> responsibility towards me. This is a specious analogy, at best. You are comparing apples and oranges. If you want to use a more accurate analogy, let's talk about the tires that came on your Audi. OK, you find a tire that's bad due to a design defect; your Audi dealer won't take the responsibility for it. If you have a really good dealer, he may "take care of you", but in the majority of cases, he'll send you to the tire manufacturer for an adjustment. Or let's say that fancy AM-FM-Cassette player in your Audi breaks. Audi won't fix it for you. They may pull it out of the car, but then it goes over to the people who designed and manufactured it. This same procedure applies to most major assemblies in the auto-parts industry, be it domestic or foreign. (Major assemblies means things like alternators, carburetors, fuel-injection units, starters, radios, tires, etc.) It should also be noted that if the climate control in your Audi has design defects in it, and Audi has to replace them in all their cars, Audi will most certainly seek legal recourse against GM for the cost, etc. of such replace- ment ... they pay even seek punitive damages. But all this would be in the contracts between Audi and GM, and invisible to the end-user, just as any agreement between Microsoft and Fujitsu is "invisible" to a user. You're right in one respect though ... if my machine had a busted UART, or memory chip, or 8086, etc., I would expect Fujitsu to handle the repair, not Intel or whomever. The difference is that those component parts were designed into the machine by Fujitsu ... yours was not. You (in the generic sense) designed your product, and you are (or damn well *should* be) responsible for it. >> The thing that confuses you is that it says (c) microsoft on the disk >> and you sign a MS license agreement, wheras you don't see GM on the >> climate control box. Look fellow, I am NOT confused, and I *do* understand. I'm sure it's improves one's P&L Statement to be able to market a product and not provide ANY support for it. BTW, if you look closely at your climate control box, I bet you *will* find GM's logo on it (or Bosch, or Lucas, or whatever) ... not that this has anything to do with MASM. >> This is because of the way that intellectual >> property works - GM doesn't have to copyright their climate box, since >> it can't be reproduced in a XEROX machine. And if some company were >> to knock off the design, they have patent protection. >> >> In the case of intellectual property, we have to assert copyright >> ownership, rather than patent. The law requires that each copy carry >> the copyright notice - prominantly. I don't know if the GM gear has to >> carry patent numbers, but if so they can be under the covers. >> The license agreement is also necesary to keep >> from loosing our ownership of the product. Our name appears on parts >> that were sold to OEMs stricly because of legal necessity; the actuality >> is that you bought a Fujitsu assembler, and that's where you have to get >> your support. Lesee, MASM is Microsoft's "intellectual property", but its really Fujitsu's assembler. Do you *really* expect anybody to believe this? And just how is the Easter Bunny these days .... It's rather strange then, that Fujitsu doesn't have the source-code for "their" assembler. They *cannot* fix my problem, even if they wanted to. >> Fujitsu's statement is either made from ignorance, or >> you misunderstood when they said, "We don't support this (our) product. >> Microsoft sells and supports an identical product, you can see them." Everybody's wrong except poor little ol' good-hearted Microsoft, eh? It is not "their product." If it were, then *they* would be protecting *their* intellectual property rights, not Microsoft's. It is Microsoft who invented the fiction that it is Fujitsu's product specifically for marketing reasons. To wit, who has the source-code? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Simply *saying* it's Fujitsu's product don't make it so anymore than my posting a sign disclaiming responsibility if your fall into my swimming pool relieves me of that responsibility. >> If you buy a assembler from Microsoft, you can get support >> from Microsoft. If you buy one from Fujitsu, thats where your support >> comes from. I suppose next you'll tell me that if I buy a Microsoft assembler from ComputerLand, that's where my support will come from. This is no different than buying one from Fujitsu from the customer's point of view. As I already said, I'm real sorry that your "business arrangement" with Fujitsu on the marketing of MASM isn't as profitable as you'd like it to be, but THAT IS NOT MY PROBLEM ... talk to your own Marketing folks ... they made the deal! Just don't try to cloud the issue here by claiming that it is Fujitsu's product. Most people on the net are bright enough to know that if it looks like a skunk, walks like a skunk, and smells like a skunk, then it probably *is* a skunk. *** END FLAMES (mostly) *** Lest anybody misunderstand, I am not asking for anything I'm not entitled to (in my opinion, naturally). I'd gladly pay the upgrade fee to Fujitsu, but they aren't marketing a version of MASM any newer than 2.x. I would also pay Microsoft the upgrade fee, but they say it's not their product. Funny that MASM with a Microsoft label on it is a Microsoft product, and that MASM with an IBM label on it (*and* an IBM copyright in the code) is a Microsoft product (it must be, as Microsoft *will* upgrade IBM's MASM, as well as several other manufacturers MASM's), but MASM with a Fujitsu label on it (but with a Microsoft copyright) is not a Microsoft product. Ah well, what goes around comes around ... sooner or later the lack of treating people fairly bites back. Disclaimer: All comments, remarks, and observations in this posting are mine alone, and in no way reflect any position or statement by my employer. /kim "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." -- Lazarus Long -- UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!kim DDD: 415-960-1200 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems Inc, 1330 Charleston Rd, Mt View, CA 94043
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (01/01/86)
The service manual for my TR7 says that the automatic transmission (which I do not have) is made by Borg-Warner, not by Triumph. It goes on to say that part of the agreement that Triumph made with Borg-Warner in purchasing these transmissions was that Borg-Warner would not hear from any Triumph owners about parts or service. Thus, for repair parts, advice, whatever, the manual insists that one must go to Trumph, not Borg-Warner. It sounds like Microsoft made a similar deal with Fujitsu. I see nothing wrong with that.
bothner@Navajo.ARPA (01/03/86)
{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!kim (Kim DeVaughn) writes: > Gordon Letwin of Microsoft replies (with no disclaimer, so I assume this is > representitive of Microsoft's official policy): Please don't assume anything of the sort! For years people have been asked to not clog the network (and my terminal) with their stupid disclaimers. People like you cause their lawyers to think themselves justified in enforcing this obnoxious habit. Repeat one hundred times: ANY MESSAGE ON ANY SUBJECT ONLY REPRESENTS THE OPINION OF THE POSTER! As to the the subject of the debate (caveat: I missed the first messages, so this may off the wall): It is the seller of a product who is legally responsible for it to the buyer. This probably gets very complicated what with distinguishing between sellers, re-sellers, agents of sellers, etc, and the possibility of bankruptcy, but it would seen clear that it is Fujitsu who is responsible for something when you buy it from them. The copyright on a product has nothing to do with who is liable \to you/ for defects in it. (If you buy a book which has half the pages missing, you take it to the bookstore, not the author.) > I suppose next you'll tell me that if I buy a Microsoft assembler from > ComputerLand, that's where my support will come from. Yes, assuming Computerland is a re-seller rather than an agent. Of course, Microsoft has a legal obligation to Computerland for the quality of its products. If a program is so broken that you can claim it violates the "implied warranty of sale" (which usually takes precedence over any bogus disclaimers), you are entitled to get it fixed, replaced or refunded \from Computerland, even if Microsoft were bankrupt/. Of course, as a service to its dealers, Microsoft may provide support without requiring you to go through Computerland, but they are not obliged to. > If you want to use a more accurate analogy, let's talk about the tires that > came on your Audi. OK, you find a tire that's bad due to a design defect; > your Audi dealer won't take the responsibility for it. He'd better, since he \is/ responsible. It is not \your/ problem to contact the tire manufacturer, it is his. > Or let's say that fancy AM-FM-Cassette player in your Audi breaks. Audi > won't fix it for you. They may pull it out of the car, but then it goes > over to the people who designed and manufactured it. Exactly, but note that it is Audi who has to pull it out of the car and send it the manufacturer, not you. [After flaming about disclaimers, I will still insert a small one here: Take these as the opinions of a non-legally trained person.] -- --Per Bothner Bothner@su-navajo ...!decwrl!glacier!navajo!bothner Computer Science Dept., Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (01/06/86)
In article <4763@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >The service manual for my TR7 says that the automatic transmission >(which I do not have) is made by Borg-Warner, not by Triumph. >It goes on to say that part of the agreement that Triumph made >with Borg-Warner in purchasing these transmissions was that Borg-Warner >would not hear from any Triumph owners about parts or service. >Thus, for repair parts, advice, whatever, the manual insists >that one must go to Trumph, not Borg-Warner. > >It sounds like Microsoft made a similar deal with Fujitsu. I see >nothing wrong with that. Actually, my impression was that the situation was a little more involved. The analogy should be extended. Thus given that contract, the situation is that I have gone to Triumph with a manufacturing error in my transmission and was told "We can't fix that - we don't carry the parts", so in desperation I go to Borg-Warner and ask for help and they sy "Go to Triumph - they bought the transmission and all responsibility for it". The problem is that *nobody* is taking responsibility for the repair(bug-fixes) for the Fujitsu distribution of the Assembler! In order to get an upgrade the owner must buy an *entirely* *new* copy from Microsoft, at *full* *price*. This is hardly reasonable. In the above analogy, Triumph would replace the defective transmission, probably *free*, at least if the car was still under warrenty. Why should it be possible for two software companies to so pass the buck that *noone* is responsible for errors. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa