wew@naucse.cse.nau.edu (Bill Wilson) (10/24/90)
Is it time to boycott Lotus now that they have won the case against Paperback Software? How do you all feel about using litigation instead of supplying a better product for a reasonable price? Let sleeping dragons lie........ | The RoleMancer ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Wilson (Bitnet: ucc2wew@nauvm | wilson@nauvax) Northern AZ Univ Flagstaff, AZ 86011 -- Let sleeping dragons lie........ | The RoleMancer ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Wilson (Bitnet: ucc2wew@nauvm | wilson@nauvax) Northern AZ Univ Flagstaff, AZ 86011
cotner@maypo.berkeley.edu (10/24/90)
In article <2735@naucse.cse.nau.edu> wew@naucse.cse.nau.edu (Bill Wilson) writes: > >Is it time to boycott Lotus now that they have won the case >against Paperback Software? How do you all feel about using >litigation instead of supplying a better product for a >reasonable price? > >Bill Wilson (Bitnet: ucc2wew@nauvm | wilson@nauvax) >Northern AZ Univ Flagstaff, AZ 86011 I was wondering the same thing after reading an article about the lawsuit today. I know I would never buy a Lotus product now. Carl Cotner cotner@math.berkeley.edu
rstanton@portia.Stanford.EDU (Richard Stanton) (10/24/90)
In article <2735@naucse.cse.nau.edu> wew@naucse.cse.nau.edu (Bill Wilson) writes: Is it time to boycott Lotus now that they have won the case against Paperback Software? How do you all feel about using litigation instead of supplying a better product for a reasonable price? -------------------------------------------------------------- Does anyone know whether this is likely to have an effect on Borland's Quattro Pro (while we're on the subject of better products at reasonable prices)? I think I recall reading about their being the targets of a suit for providing 1-2-3 compatible menus. Richard Stanton pstanton@gsb-lira.stanford.edu
gargulak@mozart.convex.com (Tom Gargulak) (10/25/90)
> > Is it time to boycott Lotus now that they have won the case > against Paperback Software? How do you all feel about using > litigation instead of supplying a better product for a > reasonable price? 1) I like to pay less money for a clone package. 2) Lotus invested a lot only to have several companies copy the a successful product. The development investment of these clones was obviously much less. How would you like it if someone copied the "look and feel" of your software and sold it for less? Its a tough call. -Tom
mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) (10/25/90)
In article <2735@naucse.cse.nau.edu> wew@naucse.cse.nau.edu (Bill Wilson) writes: >Is it time to boycott Lotus now that they have won the case >against Paperback Software? How do you all feel about using >litigation instead of supplying a better product for a >reasonable price? In article <1990Oct23.233556.6104@agate.berkeley.edu> cotner@maypo.berkeley.edu writes: >I was wondering the same thing after reading an article about >the lawsuit today. I know I would never buy a Lotus product now. I find these comments fascinating. The implication seems to be that it wouldn't have mattered if Lotus had lost, but that they are bad guys because they won. Look, either it was wrong to take the matter to court in which case you should have called for a boycott when Lotus first sued, or there's nothing wrong at all in which case you should simply treat Lotus' victory as the outcome of a fair fight in a court of law. You can't have it both ways. Marc R. Roussel mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
cotner@maypo.berkeley.edu (10/26/90)
In article <1990Oct25.164317.27237@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes: > [seminal article deleted] > >In article <1990Oct23.233556.6104@agate.berkeley.edu> I write: >> >>I was wondering the same thing after reading an article about >>the lawsuit today. I know I would never buy a Lotus product now. > >I find these comments fascinating. The implication seems to be that it >wouldn't have mattered if Lotus had lost, but that they are bad guys >because they won. I would not now buy a Lotus product after reading of their *lawsuit*, victory or not. The original poster did refer to Lotus winning, but I didn't mean to. > Look, either it was wrong to take the matter to court >in which case you should have called for a boycott when Lotus first >sued, or there's nothing wrong at all in which case you should simply >treat Lotus' victory as the outcome of a fair fight in a court of law. >You can't have it both ways. Although my decision not to buy Lotus products is independent of their winning the lawsuit, I don't entirely agree with your argument. You could very reasonably decide to avoid Lotus products in light of the trial's outcome so that other companies won't attempt to use (what you believe to be) unfair laws to restrict your choice as a consumer, even though you might have decided this to be unnecessary had they lost. Indeed, had Lotus lost, the likelihood of companies using this tactic in the future to restrict competition would have been greatly diminished. I believe this is what is meant by the phrase "voting with your feet," and I see no contradiction in it. > > Marc R. Roussel > mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca Carl Cotner cotner@math.berkeley.edu
gary@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Gary Barrett) (10/26/90)
> How would you like it if someone copied the >"look and feel" of your software and sold it for less? I bet the inventor of the "horseless carriage" (or the creator of Visicalc) felt the same way. -- ======================================================================== Gary L. Barrett My employer may or may not agree with my opinions. And I may or may not agree with my employer's opinions. ========================================================================
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (10/27/90)
In <1990Oct25.164317.27237@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
The implication seems to be that it wouldn't have mattered if
Lotus had lost, but that they are bad guys because they won.
I think the point is that if Lotus hadn't won the lawsuit, anything it
did would have been moot and a boycott wouldn't be necessary. You
don't have to boycott all bad guys, only those bad guys that are in a
position to practice their badness.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com>
UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
A pointer is not an address. It is a way of finding an address. -- mehenry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) (10/27/90)
mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes: |> I find these comments fascinating. The implication seems to be that it |> wouldn't have mattered if Lotus had lost, but that they are bad guys |> because they won. Look, either it was wrong to take the matter to court |> in which case you should have called for a boycott when Lotus first |> sued, or there's nothing wrong at all in which case you should simply |> treat Lotus' victory as the outcome of a fair fight in a court of law. |> You can't have it both ways. that's right, we can't have it both ways. unfortunately, it's not clear to the average joe who uses PCs about the whys and hows of such events; they just know they want to get work done, and they know what tools they have to get the work done with. lotus' loss of this lawsuit would have perhaps set a precedent that such actions are unwarranted in the free market. unfortunately, this did not happen. i believe the lawsuit was a mistake to begin with. the league for programming freedom has sponsored a lotus boycott for quite some time. -- # Henry Mensch / <henry@garp.mit.edu> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # <hmensch@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay> / <henry@tts.lth.se> / <mensch@munnari.oz.au> # via X.400: S=mensch; OU=informatik; P=tu-muenchen; A=dbp; C=de