🚀 go-pugleaf

[ ... go ahead, eat my bits ... ]

>  Of course, even though I have their buggy Rev 2.x assembler, they won't give
>  *me* a break on a new revision ... *my* floppy is from Fujitsu, even though
>  it is  says "(c) Microsoft".  And it is MICROSOFT that threatens the wrath
>  of God if I don't abide by *their* license agreement.  Talk about having it
>  "both ways"!

Gordon Letwin of Microsoft replies (with no disclaimer, so I assume this is
representitive of Microsoft's official policy):

>> You don't understand the business arrangement here.  Microsoft sold
>> Fujitsu the rights to encorporate the MASM code in a product of theirs.

*** BEGIN FLAMES ***

First, I really don't care about what kind of "deals" were made by Microsoft
and Fujitsu concerning the marketing by Fujitsu of the Microsoft MASM product.
That is a private business arrangement, which end-users should not have to
concern themselves with;  in any case, it was NOT disclosed prior to purchase
of the product.

Secondly, the Microsoft MASM Assembler marketed by Fujitsu is/was NOT
"incorporated" into a Fujitsu product.  It is/was sold seperately.  It was
advertised as a Microsoft product, and the only "incorporation" performed
by Fujitsu was (I assume) to duplicate the floppy and documentation ...
complete with Microsoft's copyright notices, typos, and bugs.


>> I have an Audi, and I happen to know that the climate control system
>> was designed and built by GM.  But I'm not confused over who sold
>> me the system, who took the majority of the profit from it, and who is
>> responsible for supporting it - its AUDI.  If I hear that GM is upgrading
>> the system on GM cars, all that tells me is that I can ask AUDI to do
>> the same and offer the same upgrade.  I realize that GM has no
>> responsibility towards me - they sold a design and some parts to another
>> company, and that deal - private between the companies - put the whole
>> of the support effort on AUDI, in exchange for which they get the bulk
>> of the money.  I have no explicit or implicit deal with GM - they have no
>> responsibility towards me.

This is a specious analogy, at best.  You are comparing apples and oranges.
If you want to use a more accurate analogy, let's talk about the tires that
came on your Audi.  OK, you find a tire that's bad due to a design defect;
your Audi dealer won't take the responsibility for it.  If you have a really
good dealer, he may "take care of you", but in the majority of cases, he'll
send you to the tire manufacturer for an adjustment.

Or let's say that fancy AM-FM-Cassette player in your Audi breaks.  Audi won't
fix it for you.  They may pull it out of the car, but then it goes over to the
people who designed and manufactured it.  This same procedure applies to most
major assemblies in the auto-parts industry, be it domestic or foreign. (Major
assemblies means things like alternators, carburetors, fuel-injection units,
starters, radios, tires, etc.)

It should also be noted that if the climate control in your Audi has design
defects in it, and Audi has to replace them in all their cars, Audi will most
certainly seek legal recourse against GM for the cost, etc. of such replace-
ment ... they pay even seek punitive damages.  But all this would be in the
contracts between Audi and GM, and invisible to the end-user, just as any
agreement between Microsoft and Fujitsu is "invisible" to a user.

You're right in one respect though ... if my machine had a busted UART, or
memory chip, or 8086, etc., I would expect Fujitsu to handle the repair, not
Intel or whomever.  The difference is that those component parts were designed
into the machine by Fujitsu ... yours was not.  You (in the generic sense)
designed your product, and you are (or damn well *should* be) responsible for
it.


>> The thing that confuses you is that it says (c) microsoft on the disk
>> and you sign a MS license agreement, wheras you don't see GM on the
>> climate control box.

Look fellow, I am NOT confused, and I *do* understand.  I'm sure it's improves
one's P&L Statement to be able to market a product and not provide ANY support
for it.  BTW, if you look closely at your climate control box, I bet you *will*
find GM's logo on it (or Bosch, or Lucas, or whatever) ... not that this has
anything to do with MASM.


>>                       This is because of the way that intellectual
>> property works - GM doesn't have to copyright their climate box, since
>> it can't be reproduced in a XEROX machine.  And if some company were 
>> to knock off the design, they have patent protection.
>> 
>> In the case of intellectual property, we have to assert copyright
>> ownership, rather than patent.  The law requires that each copy carry
>> the copyright notice - prominantly.  I don't know if the GM gear has to
>> carry patent numbers, but if so they can be under the covers.
>> The license agreement is also necesary to keep
>> from loosing our ownership of the product.  Our name appears on parts
>> that were sold to OEMs stricly because of legal necessity; the actuality
>> is that you bought a Fujitsu assembler, and that's where you have to get
>> your support.

Lesee, MASM is Microsoft's "intellectual property", but its really Fujitsu's
assembler.  Do you *really* expect anybody to believe this?  And just how is
the Easter Bunny these days ....

It's rather strange then, that Fujitsu doesn't have the source-code for
"their" assembler.  They *cannot* fix my problem, even if they wanted to.


>>                Fujitsu's statement is either made from ignorance, or
>> you misunderstood when they said, "We don't support this (our) product.
>> Microsoft sells and supports an identical product, you can see them."

Everybody's wrong except poor little ol' good-hearted Microsoft, eh?

It is not "their product."  If it were, then *they* would be protecting
*their* intellectual property rights, not Microsoft's.  It is Microsoft
who invented the fiction that it is Fujitsu's product specifically for
marketing reasons.  To wit, who has the source-code?
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Simply *saying* it's Fujitsu's product don't make it so anymore than my
posting a sign disclaiming responsibility if your fall into my swimming
pool relieves me of that responsibility.


>> If you buy a assembler from Microsoft, you can get support
>> from Microsoft.  If you buy one from Fujitsu, thats where your support
>> comes from.  

I suppose next you'll tell me that if I buy a Microsoft assembler from
ComputerLand, that's where my support will come from.  This is no different
than buying one from Fujitsu from the customer's point of view.

As I already said, I'm real sorry that your "business arrangement" with
Fujitsu on the marketing of MASM isn't as profitable as you'd like it to be,
but THAT IS NOT MY PROBLEM ... talk to your own Marketing folks ... they
made the deal!  Just don't try to cloud the issue here by claiming that
it is Fujitsu's product.  Most people on the net are bright enough to know
that if it looks like a skunk, walks like a skunk, and smells like a skunk,
then it probably *is* a skunk.

*** END FLAMES (mostly) ***


Lest anybody misunderstand, I am not asking for anything I'm not entitled
to (in my opinion, naturally).  I'd gladly pay the upgrade fee to Fujitsu,
but they aren't marketing a version of MASM any newer than 2.x.  I would
also pay Microsoft the upgrade fee, but they say it's not their product.

Funny that MASM with a Microsoft label on it is a Microsoft product, and
that MASM with an IBM label on it (*and* an IBM copyright in the code) is
a Microsoft product (it must be, as Microsoft *will* upgrade IBM's MASM,
as well as several other manufacturers MASM's), but MASM with a Fujitsu
label on it (but with a Microsoft copyright) is not a Microsoft product.

Ah well, what goes around comes around ... sooner or later the lack of
treating people fairly bites back.


Disclaimer:  All comments, remarks, and observations in this posting are
             mine alone, and in no way reflect any position or statement
	     by my employer.

/kim

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."  --  Lazarus Long
-- 

UUCP:  {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!kim
DDD:   415-960-1200
USPS:  MIPS Computer Systems Inc,  1330 Charleston Rd,  Mt View, CA 94043