Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!ucbvax!ucdavis!deneb.ucdavis.edu!cck
From: cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Software: rental analogy and insurance
Message-ID: <5064@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>
Date: 7 Aug 89 16:10:46 GMT
Sender: uucp@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu
Reply-To: cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth)
Organization: University of California, Davis
Lines: 20

Okay, the software companies say I'm really renting. Suppose I have a
fire. I loose my complete Xenix system, not a small piece of change. I
file a claim under a personal property floater. Is the insurance
company going to make a distinction between my (allegedly) rented
software and things I (allegedly) own?

My guess is that outside of the shysters who write the slips that go
into blister packs and the brilliant people who read this newsgroup, no
one else on the face of the planet ~knows~ that software is ~really~
"rented."

I'd like to see a different analogy prevail, one with drugs. For
example, you get a drug to cure your zits but instead it makes you
impotent. Instead of waiting for version 2.69 of the zit medicine, you
call your lawyer and sign up for a class action suit. As an example, I
would offer Norton Utilities. As it first went out the door, the Norton
Disk Doctor not only failed to fix your disk zits, it would, under some
circumstances, make your disk impotent. Presumably those who were
diddled and lost days of work deserve more than just a free upgrade to
a version that is not as destructive.