🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jun23.011635.19552@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:

   I do, however, believe that the only way to have a reasonable
   chance of buying the right software for specific needs is to use
   several competitors for several MONTHS before purchasing one of
   them.

The law, alas, believes otherwise.  Having just finished Paul Heckel's
excellent book, The Elements of Friendly Software Design, in which he
discusses his struggles to get his software patents respected, I feel
I can quote (as Mr. Heckel does) from A Man For All Seasons, in which
Sir Thomas More is told that the world interprets his silence as
meaning that he thinks the king's divorce is invalid.  More replies,
"The world may construe according to its wit, but the law must
construe according to the law."

   There is only so much that you can learn from calling the
   companies, asking the net, reading the trade rags, and talking to
   your local IDIOT computer retailer (any of the ones that I've
   talked to know less about the fewer pieces of software than your
   average Mac hobbyist/fanatic/enthusiast).

If you want to "use" or "test" nearly anything else in the world, you
must pay for it first.  I would like nothing more than to walk down
the road to my friendly Ford and GM dealers and ask that they each
give me a car for free for, say, 6 months, or at least until I decide
which one I prefer.  Then I'll be happy to pay for that one, assuming
I still want a car after all.

   This belief in a need for using software before purchase arises
   from my past software purchases. Those purchases that I am truly
   very happy with are ones that I managed to test against the
   competition for a long period of time before purchase. I hate
   having to future software needs, having to gamble by not having
   personal prior experience with all likely candidates.

   I believe that this gamble is what also has given rise to the near
   monopolies and mega-companies that we see in the Mac world today.
   Software is purchased not by its actual value, but by the fact that
   it's by somebody big and, therefore, can't be too bad.

I hate having to gamble too; what does that have to do with it?
Perhaps we should all sneak into movie theaters for free, and only
pay afterward when we know for sure whether the movie was in fact
worth seeing.  After all, Hollywood is dominated by big studio and
distribution chains; if people had more choice in the matter and
didn't have to gamble with their $6, why things would be completely
different, wouldn't they?  What sort of logic is this?  What makes you
think that software -- unlike anything else -- is purchased by the
fact that it's sold by "somebody big"?

Also, the "gambling" of which you speak is actually called, variously,
obeying the law, respecting the work of others, and not deluding
yourself into thinking that just because no one will likely catch you
doing it that what you're doing is right.

You, at least, claim to pay for your software -- though after having
gotten months of free use out of it.  Others, who take advantage of
people's work by stealing their products outright (in our industry, we
tend to use the somewhat romantic term "software pirate"; other
industries refer to these people as "shoplifters" or "thieves") are
even worse.  It will be they -- not the giant software companies --
who do the most damage to small startup firms and entrepreneurs.

Perhaps this -- and not the "gamble" of which you speak -- is truly
what "has given rise to the near monopolies and mega-companies that we
see in the Mac world today."

Where would all those failed startups be today if everyone who
unfairly and illegally used their products paid for them on time and
in full?  Might a few of them still be in business and providing
competition for those "big somebodies" that you so scorn?

One can't have it both ways.  If you want innovative software and some
competition for the status quo, don't expect people to work for you
for free.  Expect instead that they will ask -- and expect to be paid
-- a reasonable price for their work, and that they would no more
accept it months late than you would your own paycheck.

--
   Steve Baumgarten             | "New York... when civilization falls apart,
   Davis Polk & Wardwell        |  remember, we were way ahead of you."
   baumgart@esquire.dpw.com     | 
   cmcl2!esquire!baumgart       |                           - David Letterman