🚀 go-pugleaf

[My reply follows the original text, which has been reformatted from HTML
to plain text but otherwise preserved.]

On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, Patrick M. Dwyer wrote:

> Dear Chris:
>
> Your inquiry (reproduced below) has been forwarded to me for response. We
> have also noted your Dejanews posting of 8/26/98.
>
> First of all, let me say that your concerns about the licensing issues
> (multiple copies for single user, etc) are being seriously considered at
> Magic Baby. You make a couple of good points. Please look for these issues
> to be address in the near future.
>
> My task is to address your query about patentability and your now publicly
> announced intention to "knock off" our patent pending and copyright
> registered software. Please allow me to urge you to do no such thing; I can
> assure you that between our copyright registration and our soon to issue
> patent, any such knock off will be grounds for serious monetary liability,
> immediate court injunction, and payment of the company's legal expenses. You
> may wish to consult a patent and/or copyright attorney before proceeding any
> further. For copyright infringement liability alone, we will only have to
> establish access on your part to our software and substantial similarity of
> your product to ours; and you have publicly admitted to both already.
>
> To address your query about which parts we regard as patentable, I can only
> respond in prudence that we regard the entire program as patentable. Our
> claims, when issued, will specifically advise you and the rest of the public
> as to just what combinations of elements we claim exclusive rights, and any
> answer I might otherwise give you at this point other than the one just above
> would be both premature and ill advised under current patent law. You will
> of course proceed as you think proper, but you must be extremely careful not
> to rely on any protection for yourself in assembling a collection of what
> you regard, rightly or wrongly, as prior art elements - only to find out
> later that the combination of elements you have chosen is NOT previously
> known or suggested and therefore not prior art - and therefore patentable.
>
> Thank you for your interest in Magic Baby's MicroSurfer (tm) product, and
> for your praise of its operation. Please write or email me if you have any
> further questions about patentability or other legal points.
>
> PM Dwyer
>
> >>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 14:34:12 -0400 (EDT)
> >>From: "Chris W. Rea [UL]"
> <cwrea@interlog.com>
> >>To: info@magicbaby.com
> >>Subject: "Patent-pending" ?
> >>
> >>
> >>This is a question for your engineers:
> >>
> >> I'm curious. For what technology in MicroSurfer do you have a patent pendi?
> >> I can't see MicroSurfer doing anything that isn't considered prior art. Wht
> >> parts do you consider patentable? For example, let's say I write a cheap
> >> knock-off. What specific things would you consider in violation of your
> >> proposed patent? Given the other web browser accelerators out there before
> >> your product, what technology in MicroSurfer is _not_ prior art?
> >>
> >> I just took a look at Microsoft's Internet Client SDK and the IE4 WebBrowsr
> >> and InternetExplorer ActiveX objects. I can imagine duplicating MicroSurfes
> >> functionality with a bit of trivial C++ code and access to this API. So,
> >> please, what is patentable?
>
>
> Patrick M. Dwyer PC
> 1919 One Union Square, Seattle WA 98101-1129
> PCS: 206 240-7761
> Fax: 206 343-7085
>
> Counseling, Prosecution, Litigation & Dispute Resolution and Licensing in US
> & International Patent, Trademark, Copyright, and Technology Related Law
> Email: pmdwyer@earthlink.net    Member, Lexis Counsel Connect -
>


Hi Patrick.

I'm glad my complaints vis-a-vis the licensing issue are being considered
seriously.  I would gladly purchase the product if those issues are
addressed, and a less restrictive licensing mechanism is implemented.

Regarding the legality of what I propose...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but access and similarity are not sufficient
grounds for calling my proposed product a breach of *copyright.*  My
understanding regarding copyright protection is that it would offer
MicroSurfer protection only against verbatim, virtually identical copying,
either at the program source or executable code level.  That is, you can't
copyright an idea, but only the expression of that idea.  (The code.)

Now I guess that's where a patent comes into play.  However, my program
will be taking advantage of a _published_ interface in Microsoft Internet
Explorer.  I will not need to reverse engineer any part MicroSurfer to
discover "how it works", because the components I need are publically
available and documented.

Furthermore, I fail to see that MicroSurfer is original.  I managed to
find another program, called wwwDigger, which does precisely the same
thing.  Drag and drop a link, it gets pre-cached.  I have this suspicion,
actually, that wwwDigger existed before MicroSurfer.  There are also many
other programs that offer pre-caching functionality.  They do differ in
the way the user controls the program, but the idea is the same.  As far
as I know, you cannot protect the way the user controls the program.

So, although I understand Magic Baby's attempt to protect their market
share, it is only that -- an attempt to protect their market share.  There
are no legal grounds for preventing another competitor from entering the
marketplace.  But, please... convince me otherwise.


Regards,

Chris W. Rea
cwrea@interlog.com



[-- original news post below --]

In article <6s14n7$ku5@shell1.interlog.com>,
  cwrea@interlog.com (Chris W. Rea [UL]) wrote:
> [I apologize in advance if this reply is long, but I do think it is relevant
> to your query.]
>
> In article <AcR13qAAOz41Ewdv@scot.demon.co.uk>,
> Craig Cockburn  <craig@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> ...
> >I'm looking for info on tools to assist with the installation and licensing
> >of some software. The software is written in Visual C++ 5.0 and is designed
> >for Windows 95 and NT 4. In terms of the licensing software, I'm looking for
> >something which will make life difficult for anyone attempting to copy the
> >software, will allow me to distribute 30 day evaluation copies of the
software
> ...
>
> Just make sure you don't use a mechanism which may cause potential customers
> grief, or make your licensing terms too restrictive.
>
> I was interested recently in purchasing a program called MicroSurfer (see
> http://www.magicbaby.com) but the technology they use to license the product
> (VBox, see http://www.previewsoft.com) made it far too difficult for me as a
> potential customer to want to buy it.  The product was good, but the licensing
> terms and protection mechanism instantly treated me like a criminal.
>
> Why was I upset with the product?  First of all, the VBox software that
> MicroSurfer used to authorize the 30-day eval was set up to contact their web
> site over the net to authorize the install, and send them my email address,
> etc.  It can also use this connectivity to do an online secure purchase and
> unlock the eval.  The first attempt at installing the eval didn't work,
> because the PC I tried with was behind a firewall, and evidently VBox wasn't
> prepared for that.  After email to Magic Baby, I was able to get a version
> that could install behind a firewall.
>
> I ended up using the product during the eval period, and liked it very much
> to the point that I wanted to buy it.  I contacted Magic Baby and asked them
> if I could purchase a single license for my personal use, but on more than
> one PC.  (One at work, one at home, and a notebook for travel.)  I told them
> I would be the only person using the product, and no more than one copy would
> ever be used at once.  Most licenses allow this -- but I always double check.
> They said such usage would require a license for each PC.
>
> Now, VBox is this software that hides stuff on a user's system and prevents
> copying a licensed application to another PC.  This raised another problem.
> Even if you _uninstall_ the licensed application from a PC, that PC remembers
> the state of the licensed product.  Say I have a PC at work on which I use a
> VBox licensed product.  Then, I leave that company.  (I do contract work, so
> this is common.)  I want to remove my _personal_ license from the PC, so the
> next person using the PC won't be able to use my license.  Not possible!  If
> the user reinstalls the eval version, it is unlocked and fully licensed as it
> detects the hidden info still stored on the PC.  I contacted VBox and asked
> how fix this, but their whole product is 'security through obscurity', so they
> wouldn't tell me how to totally remove a licensed application from a PC.  This
> is probably why Magic Baby wants to sell me three licenses where one will do.
> (I tested this with the sample application available for download from VBox,
> not with MicroSurfer, which I never ended up buying.  Rather, I deleted it.)
>
> I wasn't prepared to pay 3 times US$30 to get MagicSurfer.  So, I've decided
> to code a knock-off.  It'll be shareware, to recoup the development costs;
> i.e. my time.  A key point of my product will be a NO-NONSENSE license and
> protection strategy.  I will treat my potential customers with respect.  I
> think there's an important balance to be struck between protecting your
> software sales and treating your customers properly.
>
> Incidentally, I've since found out that making a MicroSurfer knock-off is
> probably trivial, since everything needed is included as part of Internet
> Explorer 4's ActiveX API.  All I need is a user interface and some C++ or VB
> glue and I'm set.  I can also add those one or two features I thought
> MicroSurfer was lacking.
>
> Anyways, hope this helps!
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris W. Rea
> cwrea@interlog.com
>
>


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum