🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <m3soh4lnmk.fsf@obelix.wegge.dk>, Anders Wegge Jakobsen
<wegge@wegge.dk> writes
>JC> A monopoly is the situation where a single entity has exclusive
>JC> rights to market a **type** of product and no-one else may produce
>JC> and market a similar competing product.
>
> As I said, why don't *You* read a dictionary?

You still do not understand the difference between monopoly and
copyright. I refuse to keep repeating such a simple matter to you.

> It doesn't? How many look&feel lawsuits have been made within the
>last decade. Explain why GIF viewing software cannot be made without
>paying UniSys for it's usage.

Every single 'look and feel' lawsuite has ultimately failed. I use free
GIF software for which no license has been paid - it is supplied with
Linux and FreeBSD.

>JC> The choice exists to use a product or to use a different one. If
>JC> it matters to you that much then it is up to YOU to bring an
>JC> OpenSource product out which is the equal of the propietary one -
>JC> YOU DO HAVE THAT FREEDOM!
>
> I'm aware of that, but that's still not going to help those poor sods
>who're stuck with something that's unable to perform as promised, and
>with no hope of rescue.

The choice is ALWAYS there to simply drop a product that does not work
as advertised (and to take the company to court under trading standards
law) and use one that does!

>JC> The product works exactly as I expect it to. It is from a large
>JC> company who's fortunes are tied to the product. If there is a
>JC> significant bug I can get them to fix it or if the resist I can
>JC> publicly shame them into doing so.
>
> You can at least try, but there's no guarantee. Really large
>companies doesn't really give a damn, and some even go to the extreme,
>and claim that no bugs exists, beyond user errors.

This is true of some companies but, as I said before, those companies do
NOT have a monopoly so you are free to use someone elses products.

>JC> be reasonably generic to appeal to a larger market so if a company
>JC> with such resources want to have a product meeting their exact
>JC> needs they develope one. But what do I know - I am only speaking
>JC> from experience!
>
> No you're not. Most solutions that are specially tailored for a
>specific company is actually based upon something pre-existing that
>more or less matches what's needed. 

My experience gathered woking for over 10 years in the industry for many
different companies, is that if they have the resources to do so they
will implement their own solution tailored to their exact needs.

> Probably, except that you would have to learn a whole new game of
>fish called survival. See, nobody would want to pay consluttant fees
>for a product that I and others could make in our spare time, and give
>away for free.  That's the beauty of the Open Source model. Nobody is
>expecting a bundle of cash out of the efforts, so there's no
>imperative to avoid turning it into a group effort.

How do you suggest that developers will earn their living? If they areto
produce high quality products and be able to market them effectively
they MUST be paid. Would you expect a farmer to work so hard for
nothing? Would you expect a doctor to work for nothing? Why then do you
insist that a software developer does not have the right to earn a
living from his labours?

> And you belive that the profit is channeled back into the creation of
>a new product, which then will be priced very low, now that the
>development already have been paid? I think you could do well with a
>crash course in market mechanisms.

The costs of producing a new product would be no lower than the costs of
peoducing the previous one - in fact they would be larger due to a
little fact of life known as inflation.

Do not forget that companies have to spend much of their income
supporting the product they have released. They also have to make a
profit - else why bother in the first place. This is business not
charity!
-- 
Jason Clifford