Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!jhunix!bio_zwbb
From: bio_zwbb@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (William Busa)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds
Subject: Re: The HP 48 Programmer's ToolKit (review, long)
Message-ID: <6527@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>
Date: 27 Sep 90 12:40:59 GMT
References: <57750@microsoft.UUCP> <1990Sep26.181705.20455@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Reply-To: bio_zwbb@jhunix.UUCP (Dr. William B. Busa)
Organization: Dept. of Biology, The Johns Hopkins University
Lines: 86

In article <1990Sep26.181705.20455@nntp-server.caltech.edu> madler@piglet.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) writes:
>
>I saw the advertisement for James Donnely's toolkit in the EduCalc catalog,
>and it somehow seemed to me unethical.
>
>Here he is using information, but
>not making it available.  He has access to very special tools at HP for
>constructing machine language programs, not to mention access to commented
>source for the ROM.  If machine source for his tools, and perhaps a
>description of the instruction set came with the tools, then I would consider
>it a great service and would have no qualms whatsoever about him making a few
>bucks off of his special position.  But as it is, the tools are magic boxes
>that are useful, but nonetheless mysterious.
>
>So am I off base in my initial gut reaction to seeing a member of the HP-48
>team selling machine language tools, competing with other after-market
>software developers for the HP-48?
>

	The question, to my mind, is larger (and different!) than that of
Donnely's ethics. IMHO, a problem has developed which neither we
user/programmers nor HP could have anticipated, and this problem has yet
to be addressed directly.

	As I've suggested in previous postings, the 48 is the first true
handheld computer (actually, I might modify that to "the first true
handheld computer which any significant number of people are interested in
writing software for..." :-) ). As a *computer* (rather than a calculator)
its in a nearly unique market position in that it is a completely *closed*
system -- we have (officially, at least) no idea how it works! This is
*not* due to malevolance on HP's part -- its simply a logical historical
progression. HP (Corvallis) is in the business of producing cutting-edge
programmable calculators. Because they are pulling the technology along
(rather than chasing after it like everybody else) their development costs
must be astronomical. Consequently they sell their machines at a premium
price (to recoup those development costs and make a decent profit).
Further, they are (quite reasonably, IMHO) loathe to give away their
hard-earned secrets to competitors who, with the ROM code in hand, could
crank out clones quite cheaply. Just look at what happened to the IBM PC.
So, it makes perfectly good business sense for HP to withhold their code
and development tools.   

	On the other hand, we as programmers of *computers* are quite
unused to programming a "black box" -- its hard, its no fun, and we can't
do as good a job as someone (like Donnely) who has access to this
priviledged information. Thus, its quite understandable that we sometimes
howl with outrage about the closed nature of the system we are attempting
to program. From *our* point of view, it is a little silly that we have to
depend on good folk like Gariepy and Grevelle to "reverse engineer" the
system for us, when all the info we need resides in a set of manuals and
some computer files in Corvallis. Poor Dr. Wickes simply gets himself in
more hot water every time he generously hands out a few SYSEVALs, as these
simply whet our appetites for MORE.

	Consequently, the developement of this fundamentally new kind of
machine has inadvertently set HP and its loyalists at odds -- to
*everyone's* detriment. We lose because we can't write the kind of
software that this machine cries out for. HP loses both because its
loyalists' feelings get hurt, *and* because it can't benefit (as the IBM
PC has) from an enormous pool of outside-vendor software that would make
everyone and his brother want to run out and buy their machine. What's the
solution? I really don't know. It would be *great* if HP would sell a
software developer's package, consisting of the commented ROM code and
whatever development tools they have on hand. But doing so would make it
easy for the clone-makers to undercut HP's market position, I would guess,
so this seems bloody unlikely. Perhaps there are legal and/or technical
means by which HP could release the information *and* protect their
position, but I'm neither a lawyer nor an EE, so I can't say. I just hope
that people at HP are at least asking themselves these questions.

	As to the narrower issue of the propriety of Donnely's use of
inside information to write the kind of code *we'd* love to write, I see
this as a non-issue. At present, that information is HP's to do with as it
wishes. By virtue of the fact that Donnely is still employed at HP and
isnt getting his pants sued off, I assume that he has HP's blessing to use
the information -- but he almost certainly doesn't have HP's blessing to
*release* that information, so we can hardly blame him for withholding it.
At present, I'm just happy to have Donnely's nifty tools available to me.
In the longer term, I hope HP can find a way to make this information
available to outside programmers without crippling its unique ability to
produce such marvelous machines. *Everyone* will benefit if it can -- and
*everyone* will be hurt if it can't. Its an old story: new technologies
create damn sticky new ethical problems. Anyone out there with some
expertise in business law have any suggestions regarding a way out of this
mess?