🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9665.2687d72d@amherst.bitnet> amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet writes:
>In article <1990Jun26.161427.3417@Neon.Stanford.EDU>, kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) writes:
>> 
>
>I liscense agreement, in most cases, appears where the diskettes are contained. 
>This means that you can open the package, read the manauls, check out the
>mailing stuff inside, etc, as you like.  Once open the package that contains
>the diskettes, then you have agreed to the terms of the liscense. REad the
>entire manual if you like to make sure the software will do what you are
>looking for it to do.  If it doesn't, send the package back and get your money
>back.
>
We know what you're writing in these license agreements, what we're saying
is
that they're *not valid*.  No shrinkwrap agreement has ever been tested
in court and a company would be committing fiscal suicide to rely on one.
I'm not saying that people should go out and copy your software, I'm saying
that there is *no* contract between two parties.  Suppose your license
agreement said that if I broke the seal, title to my house passes to you.
If I break the seal, do you own my house?  A company could put any wording
it likes in this so-called agreement, and, according to you, it would be
valid.  How about if the seal arrives broken in transit?  or missing?
How could you prove someone broke the seal?  Is there no agreement if the
seal is intact but the envelope with the disks has been slit open at the
bottom?  Sorry, but I'm a software developer, too, with products on the
open market, and I don't believe any of these shrinkwrap agreements
are going to pass muster.

>>>You may talk to our lawyer (who writes our software agreements) in court if you
>>>would like to test the system.
>> 
>> I'm not afraid of your lawyer.  And you'll have to bring the action, and
>> win the case -- or pay MY court costs (and the lawyers I use are not cheap)
>
>I forgot the smiley on that on.  It was intended to be humorous.
>
This is probably the worst of all.  These lawyers are trying to create this
new kind of contract law and, worst of all, are not using legislation.
They're just putting all these license agreements out there and hoping that
if there's enough of them out there, it will become de facto law.  This
increases the chances of litigation and puts more of the software
developers bucks in the lawyer's pockets.  Where do you want to spend 
your money - on a good research programmer or a lawyer?

>Let me throw this at you:  I can see your argument against liscense agreements. 
>If you have a system that will work for *all* companies to A) Protect their
>software from piracy, B) Keep their profit margins in the positive, C) Protect
>the users from poor software, but also from deceiving companies, and D) Is
>simple, clean and efficient, then I'd be more than willing to try it.

I don't think that your license agreement will accomplish A,B,C or D, and
if you try to enforce it, could result in a negative B.

>However, think about this:  If a software companiy sells package "A" @ $495,
>and the package is pirated a hundred times, that's already a $49,500 loss for
>the company.  Compound over time to a year or two (let's say that the package
>is pirated four hundred times, one hundred for every business quarter) the loss
>becomes $198,000.  That's quite a chunk.  Some software companies need that
>money.  They could advertise more, hire moer emplotyees to help their
>customers, etc.

If it's legal protection you want, then the copyright law has it.  Shrink-
wrap licenses have done very little (if anything) to stop pirating that
is not covered under copyright protection already.

>I'm am all for a new system, if you like.  Givbe me the system, the numbers,
>the cost, the employees it will require, the machines, the advertising costs,
>the insurance costs, the lawyer fees, etc., and then put those figures against
>the time it will take to implement the system, make it work for the company and
>the user, and show me that it will keep the profit margins at the highest level
>possible.  I'll be the first one to implement it.

Well, you can probably save on packaging costs by leaving out those
expensive shrinkwrap seals and you'll have the same amount of protection
and will probably not be likely to take on the costs of a shrinkwrap
litigation case.

-Owen



Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: software piracy
Summary: 
Expires: 
References: <9446@hubcap.clemson.edu> <43793@brunix.UUCP> <9658.26861a4c@amherst.bitnet> <1990Jun26.161427.3417@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <9665.2687d72d@amherst.bitnet>
Sender: 
Reply-To: omh@cs.brown.edu (Owen M. Hartnett)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Keywords: 

Owen Hartnett				omh@cs.brown.edu.CSNET
Brown University Computer Science	omh@cs.brown.edu
					uunet!brunix!omh
"Don't wait up for me tonight because I won't be home for a month."