🚀 go-pugleaf

>In article <66150@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.esd.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes:

>   Does anyone really believe that anybody will invest in a scheme
>   which requires that you raise capital, develop a product, bring the
>   product to market, but after 5 years the product can be copied
>   freely?

In article <NELSON.90Aug6100907@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu (aka NELSON@CLUTX.BITNET) writes:

>I'd just like to point out to Bruce that that is the current state of
>affairs, and I don't even have to wait 5 years.  I can take J. Random
>User's copy of 1-2-3, put it in my computer, and say "copy a: c:" and
>viola, I have a copy of 1-2-3.  This hasn't stopped companies from
>engaging in all the expensive behaviors Bruce mentioned above.

>Oh, you mean that isn't legal?  Tell me, is that stopping anyone besides
>a very few people?  I'm not saying that it's right, I'm saying that it's done,
>and it doesn't stop companies from creating huge investments.

The problem of people copying software without paying for it is a significant
loss of revenue for software companies.  But it's really a very minor
problem compared with a complete loss of intellectual property protection
for software.

The ease with which software can be copied has cost the software industry
a lot of investment capital.  But if it becomes legal to sell plagiarized
compies of software, who'd invest in new software development?  It takes
years of development and millions of dollars to bring a modern software
product to market.  Who'll pay for this?

Without protection against plagiarism, there'll be no significant investment
in software development.

			Bruce Karsh
			karsh@sgi.com