🚀 go-pugleaf

In <SalyuSAJBnF2Ewa7@dlsl.demon.co.uk> Jason Clifford <jason@dlsl.demon.co.uk> writes:
>The baker did not invent bread. He does not have to concern himself with
>its maintenance once you have purchased it. The baker can reasonably
>expect to recoup all his expenses regarding that one loaf of bread by
>selling it to you.

The baker, just as with the software company, has many fixed costs, and
his own living to consider as well. Or did you think ovens etc were
free? Using your analogy a software company should seel its product for
the price of the expenses of that one disk (about 50 cents these days).
The support is worth something, more to some than others, and pretty bad
usually. It would be better if that supprot were simply sold as a
seperate package (as Redhat, does and as Microsoft and IBM also do). 


>A monopoly is the state where one body has absolute control of all of
>the rights regards a type of product or service and no other company may
>produce a similar product in competition.

Precisely the case for software. If I sell something too similar to Word
2.0, I get a nasty letter from MS. A copyright does give the company or
person owing it absolute control over anything sufficiently similar to
the product being copyrighted. That is a monopoly.


>Most patents regarding software fundementals are unenforcable. The
>Patent Office in any given country awards a patent does not actually
>make that patent unforcable. Are you aware that someon has already
>registered a patent on switching a bit from 1 to 0 and from 0 to 1? The
>patent is completely unenforcable but has been awarded.

NOt least because it has expired. But the patent does shift the onus of
proof on the challenger to show why the patent is invalid. Ie, the
patent is deemed valid unless shown to be otherwise. That sets a high
bar to any challenger.