MADSON@sri-kl.arpa (01/03/86)
The one-sided treatment of the Illinois software law in favor of the "licensor" (sic, or perhaps sick) should make several points obvious to the concerned computer user and software purchaser: 1) Software developers and sellers (including programmers, producers, discount mail-order vendors, and your local store) need to be made aware of how large the "other side" is, and how strongly we feel about restrictions, legisla- tion, and misrepresentations regarding the software we buy. If we can show them that such user frustrations translate directly into less income for all concerned, and we can offer constructive alternatives, we'll be halfway there. 2) Legislators need to know the same--how big and how strong the opposing feelings run. If you were a lawmaker and all you heard were the complaints of developers, your laws would almost certainly reflect that bias (assuming all other things being equal, which of course they aren't; vendors, for instance, have a $$louder$$ voice than your average software purchaser). 3) While opposing unbalanced laws, we should advocate a few consumer protection measures of our own. If a seller plans to degrade the value of his or her software through use of irritating copy protection, the packaging should be required to indicate that such protection is used. If the user is required to send additional money in to obtain backups, this should also be obviously marked on the packaging. We have the right to know what we are paying for. I also think too many of us believe too strongly in the power of the "free market" in determining which software package predominates. In the long run, I agree that obnoxious programs (due to bad protection or just bad code) will die a just death; however, the time constants involved in hardware and software don't often provide the freedom to wait for the market forces to catch up. If you have a machine that will be outdated in 4 or 5 years and yet you wait the extra year or two it takes another developer to produce a good Gorp compiler that is _not_ protected, you will have wasted a major part of your investment. I whole-heartedly suggest that you avoid all products that don't live up to their claims, or that do nasty things that were never mentioned by the seller, but don't sit around waiting for the marketplace to decide what you will and won't be able to buy. If you let the marketers know directly what you do and don't want in a product, the marketplace may change a lot faster. --Carl Madson SRI International, Menlo Park, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Of course, all the above was generated by a random-text program and does not reflect the views of anyone except Don Knuth because the randomizing algorithm is his. Hofstadter's Law: Everything takes longer than you think it will, even when you take Hofstadter's Law into account. -------
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (01/05/86)
> >I also think too many of us believe too strongly in the power of the "free >market" in determining which software package predominates. In the long run, My god. I never realized this. We're missing out on a fantastic opportunity to have a bunch of lawers and legislators tell us how software should look, how it should be packaged, who should own it and to what extent the rights can be purchased. And here we were being so silly as to have software people do this! >I agree that obnoxious programs (due to bad protection or just bad code) will >die a just death; however, the time constants involved in hardware and software >don't often provide the freedom to wait for the market forces to catch up. If >you have a machine that will be outdated in 4 or 5 years and yet you wait the >extra year or two it takes another developer to produce a good Gorp compiler >that is _not_ protected, you will have wasted a major part of your investment. Right, what we need then is a law that says the first compiler that comes out has to be a good compiler. How can any law change the fact that quality software takes time to write? Of course, we all know legislators work at blinding speed. Market forces will work very well in the computer biz. In this industry, it's the *norm* to see revolutionary change in less than a year. Even IBM, greatest bastion of conservative business practices, came out with a machine 4 times better than the PC in 4 years. Let's see Ford Motors do that! Take a look at the largest companies in the world, particularly the largest retailers. They got where they were by providing reliable service that pleased customers. Nobody had to pass a law enforcing the Eaton's Guarantee (Large department store chain, grew that way with 1 year unconditional guarantee on *all* merchandise) Buying software that somebody else wrote is not a right, it's a priviledge. Just like the software publisher doesn't have a right to your money. Any deal you want to work out is between you and him, bringing in Government goons will just make me sell my software to others, if you leave me with a choice. (Which you probably won't) -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) (01/08/86)
One comment on your "We all believe in the Free Market System too strongly..."
quip: Legislation such as the Illinois idiocy is a direct contravention
of the Free Market. By opposing the bill, we are attempting to restore
the (such as it is) Free Market
{hp-pcd | tektronix} !orstcs!richardt
Richard Threadgill
1230 NW 23rd #7
Corvallis Or
And they come when they're summoned,
And they do what must be done,
And they live for the movement,
They take pride in being some
Of the lucky and the chosen
And the perfect men.
And the Strangers
Are with us again.
-- Planet P Project, "Pink World"levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (01/12/86)
In article <473@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > > Market forces will work very well in the computer biz. In this > industry, it's the *norm* to see revolutionary change in less than > a year. Even IBM, greatest bastion of conservative business > practices, came out with a machine 4 times better than the PC in > 4 years. Let's see Ford Motors do that! > Alas, the propagation of the market forces in the case of software (you are speaking of HARDWARE here in your example) is through enough people getting stuck with snake oil that the rumors become unignorable, and people don't buy certain packages (or even from certain vendors) because of the tales of suffering from their neighbors. That does not sound like the most admirable consumer protection mechanism in the world, especially for people who are novices and/or lack a good grapevine connection. > Take a look at the largest companies in the world, particularly the > largest retailers. They got where they were by providing reliable > service that pleased customers. Nobody had to pass a law enforcing > the Eaton's Guarantee (Large department store chain, grew that way with > 1 year unconditional guarantee on *all* merchandise) > (I presume Eaton's is Canadian?) Yes, nobody legislates excellence in service. But should Eaton's have decided to be the other way, to market lousy products and then act like a S.O.B. when people tried to take them back, surely even in Canada there is legislation which puts a limit to how far that may go? > Buying software that somebody else wrote is not a right, it's a > priviledge. Just like the software publisher doesn't have a right > to your money. Any deal you want to work out is between you and > him, bringing in Government goons will just make me sell my software > to others, if you leave me with a choice. (Which you probably won't) FLAME!!!!! ROARRRR!!!!! BURNERS TO MAX!!!!!! SNOOTY, REALLY SNOOTY at best. The 'someone' who wrote the software in question decided to MARKET IT. And when he/she did, and accepted MONEY (or the equivalent) in return for allowing others to use it, somehow I have great difficulty regarding that as a favor or the grant- ing of a 'privilege'. If the 'government goons' lay down requirements that software you DECIDE TO MARKET must meet certain minimum require- ments of fairness, like stating copy protection status, if any, includ- ing the deliberate presence of 'worms' [destructive copy protection schemes], and spelling out licensing requirements and backup allowances, etc. on the outer cover or in documentation which must be available to the public at the point of sale, then that would be to the detriment of nobody but the dishonest! It would be nice too if a copy of the manual was required to be readable before purchase and that the software was reasonably guaranteed to at least meet the description in the manual [allowing that some unintentional typos may occur], but maybe that would be a bit much to ask on first effort, eh? >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Coolers on now. Sizzle, sputter, dribble.... Perhaps understandable viewpoint, looking at where this guy is coming from. Yet I would hope that the industry would take the aforementioned 'Eatons' as an example and voluntarily present as fair and as descriptive as possible of a sales interface to the user, so that nobody, not even the novice, would have a valid reason to complain that they bought a copy of a program which wasn't really what they thought it was. Then maybe the government would stay off the industry's back. -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (01/13/86)
In article <681@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: > (you are speaking of HARDWARE here in your example) is through enough > people getting stuck with snake oil that the rumors become unignorable, > and people don't buy certain packages (or even from certain vendors) > because of the tales of suffering from their neighbors. That does > not sound like the most admirable consumer protection mechanism in the > world, especially for people who are novices and/or lack a good > grapevine connection. Of course some people pick up a bad product. But let's see some hard evidence that government intervention doesn't hurt the industry (and thus all the customers) even more. > > SNOOTY, REALLY SNOOTY at best. The 'someone' who wrote the software > in question decided to MARKET IT. And when he/she did, and accepted > MONEY (or the equivalent) in return for allowing others to use it, > somehow I have great difficulty regarding that as a favor or the grant- > ing of a 'privilege'. Incorrect. The transaction is quite simple. You get the privilege of using my software. I get your money. A perfectly fair exchange. Or do you suggest that using my software is your right? > If the 'government goons' lay down requirements > that software you DECIDE TO MARKET must meet certain minimum require- > ments of fairness, like stating copy protection status, if any, includ- > ing the deliberate presence of 'worms' [destructive copy protection > schemes], and spelling out licensing requirements and backup > allowances, etc. on the outer cover or in documentation which must be > available to the public at the point of sale, then that would be to > the detriment of nobody but the dishonest! I don't so much wrong with requiring certain kinds of information on the package. That information in present already. The packages under complaint say things like, 'we make no warranties about the fitness of this product.' It's there in black and white. You asked a question like "is this copy protected?", and they replied "no assurances, sorry." You can treat such rude behavior in any way you desire, in particular by not buying the product. If you read and understand a disclaimer, and still buy the product, you have no right to go crying to mommy about how you got burned. "Will this burn me if I touch it?" "Could be. Touch at your own risk." "Ouch! It burned! I'm going to sue you!" Now, if a product says "not copy protected" when it is, you have a case. > > Yet I would hope that the industry would take the > aforementioned 'Eatons' as an example and voluntarily present as > fair and as descriptive as possible of a sales interface to the > user, so that nobody, not even the novice, would have a valid > reason to complain that they bought a copy of a program which wasn't > really what they thought it was. Then maybe the government would > stay off the industry's back. >-- This is exactly what is happening. Several software companies are offering guarantees on their established products. I hope to do the same on mine once they have been out for a while. (I think it's a law of software that you can't guarantee the early releases of a program unless you're IBM and have $100,000 to test it. I hope the government doesn't try to pretend otherwise.) > ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are >| dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- >| an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer >| at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. >| skokie, illinois | > -------------------------------- Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy I don't care about your disclaimer. I'm going to sue AT&T for the nasty things you have said. If your opinions are not those of AT&T, then why is AT&T letting you broadcast them with AT&T equipment, putting their name in the header of your articles. I'm going to hold AT&T to everything you say. ;-) -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
che@ptsfb.UUCP (Mitch Che) (01/15/86)
In article <484@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >This is exactly what is happening. Several software companies are offering >guarantees on their established products. I hope to do the same on mine once >they have been out for a while. (I think it's a law of software that you can't >guarantee the early releases of a program unless you're IBM and have $100,000 >to test it. I hope the government doesn't try to pretend otherwise.) >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 This is exactly the problem. I pay money for your software, you want me to "beta" test the software for you. Oh, you say it IS tested, but you just can't guarantee it will do anything useful for me. Oh, you say you do stand behind your products but if it's unacceptable to me I can't return it. Right, you tell me I read the disclaimer... As we all anxiously wait for obnoxious software companies to go out of business, all of us can help nudge software companies in the right direction. AVOID software with obnoxious "disclaimers", AVOID software without provision for site licensing, AVOID software with copy protection. DO give business to companies that seem to be responsive to user needs, e.g. Microrim (Rbase 5000) which dropped copy protection on entire line, has site licensing, etc., Microsoft (Wordstar, Wordstar 2000) which dropped copy protection, etc. (I have no relationship with either of these companies and use them as examples only.) We can't be happy with every product, every company, every time, but some companies seem to be trying to be much less antagonistic than others. $$ talk, let's rattle them up... ADAPSO, are you listening? (Yes boys and girls, can we get ADAPSO members to all spell "SITE LICENSING"? :-) -- Mitch Che Pacific Bell --------------------------------------- disclaimer, disclaimer, disclaimer, too (415) 823-2438 uucp: {ihnp4,dual}!ptsfa!ptsfb!che
bill@sigma.UUCP (Bill Swan) (01/17/86)
>[...] >As we all anxiously wait for obnoxious software companies to go out of >business, all of us can help nudge software companies in the right direction. >AVOID software with obnoxious "disclaimers", AVOID software without >provision for site licensing, AVOID software with copy protection. > >DO give business to companies that seem to be responsive to user needs,[...] >Microsoft (Wordstar, Wordstar 2000) which dropped copy protection, etc. ^^^^ MicroPro?? I would also avoid products by companies that do silly things like placing messages that say "Now trashing your disk" in them (whether they really are trashing it or not). -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!bill
che@ptsfb.UUCP (Mitch Che) (01/17/86)
In article <588@sigma.UUCP> bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) writes: >>[...] >>DO give business to companies that seem to be responsive to user needs,[...] >>Microsoft (Wordstar, Wordstar 2000) which dropped copy protection, etc. > ^^^^ > MicroPro?? > >I would also avoid products by companies that do silly things like placing >messages that say "Now trashing your disk" in them (whether they really are >trashing it or not). I slapped myself and I'm awake now! Yes, it is MicroPro.. My mentioning Microsoft in the context of responsive companies in light of the above is ironic. (Yes, I do have a mind like a sieve...) -- Mitch Che Pacific Bell --------------------------------------- disclaimer, disclaimer, disclaimer, too (415) 823-2438 uucp: {ihnp4,dual}!ptsfa!ptsfb!che