Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site microsoft.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!microsoft!root
From: root@microsoft.UUCP (Super User)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: Microsoft MASM upgrades
Message-ID: <8794@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Dec-85 22:53:54 EST
Article-I.D.: microsof.8794
Posted: Sat Dec 21 22:53:54 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 01:00:56 EST
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Lines: 57

Re: MASM update policy:

   From: Kim DeVaughn <kim@mips.uucp>
   Date: 11 Dec 85 19:53:49 GMT
	
   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"!
   
   Fujitsu, of course, has no intention of supporting their customers in this
   matter ... "it's not *our* assembler ... call Microsoft".   Bahhh!  

You don't understand the business arrangement here.  Microsoft sold
Fujitsu the rights to encorporate the MASM code in a product of theirs.
We receive a small fee for this, a few dollars per copy.
The OEM (Fujitsu) is responsible for producing, shipping, and supporting the
product.

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.

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.  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.  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."

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.  

	Gordon Letwin
	Microsoft