Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site looking.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Your (preferred) software rights...
Message-ID: <484@looking.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Jan-86 01:14:39 EST
Article-I.D.: looking.484
Posted: Mon Jan 13 01:14:39 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 13-Jan-86 08:21:50 EST
References: <1220@brl-tgr.ARPA> <473@looking.UUCP> <681@ttrdc.UUCP>
Reply-To: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 72
Summary: 

In article <681@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes:
>	(you are speaking of HARDWARE here in your example) is through enough
>	people getting stuck with snake oil that the rumors become unignorable,
>	and people don't buy certain packages (or even from certain vendors)
>	because of the tales of suffering from their neighbors.  That does
>	not sound like the most admirable consumer protection mechanism in the
>	world, especially for people who are novices and/or lack a good
>	grapevine connection.

Of course some people pick up a bad product.  But let's see some hard evidence
that government intervention doesn't hurt the industry (and thus all the
customers) even more.
>	
>	SNOOTY, REALLY SNOOTY at best.  The 'someone' who wrote the software
>	in question decided to MARKET IT.  And when he/she did, and accepted
>	MONEY (or the equivalent) in return for allowing others to use it,
>	somehow I have great difficulty regarding that as a favor or the grant-
>	ing of a 'privilege'.
Incorrect.  The transaction is quite simple.  You get the privilege of using my
software.  I get your money.  A perfectly fair exchange.  Or do you suggest
that using my software is your right?
>	If the 'government goons' lay down requirements
>	that software you DECIDE TO MARKET must meet certain minimum require-
>	ments of fairness, like stating copy protection status, if any, includ-
>	ing the deliberate presence of 'worms' [destructive copy protection
>	schemes], and spelling out licensing requirements and backup
>	allowances, etc. on the outer cover or in documentation which must be
>	available to the public at the point of sale, then that would be to
>	the detriment of nobody but the dishonest!

I don't so much wrong with requiring certain kinds of information on the
package.  That information in present already.  The packages under complaint
say things like, 'we make no warranties about the fitness of this product.'

It's there in black and white.  You asked a question like "is this copy
protected?", and they replied "no assurances, sorry."  You can treat such
rude behavior in any way you desire, in particular by not buying the product.

If you read and understand a disclaimer, and still buy the product, you have
no right to go crying to mommy about how you got burned.  "Will this burn
me if I touch it?"  "Could be.  Touch at your own risk."  "Ouch!  It burned!
I'm going to sue you!"

Now, if a product says "not copy protected" when it is, you have a case.
>
>	Yet I would hope that the industry would take the
>	aforementioned 'Eatons' as an example and voluntarily present as
>	fair and as descriptive as possible of a sales interface to the
>	user, so that nobody, not even the novice, would have a valid
>	reason to complain that they bought a copy of a program which wasn't
>	really what they thought it was.  Then maybe the government would
>	stay off the industry's back.
>-- 
This is exactly what is happening.  Several software companies are offering
guarantees on their established products.  I hope to do the same on mine once
they have been out for a while.  (I think it's a law of software that you can't
guarantee the early releases of a program unless you're IBM and have $100,000
to test it.  I hope the government doesn't try to pretend otherwise.)
> -------------------------------    Disclaimer:  The views contained herein are
>|       dan levy | yvel nad      |  my own and are not at all those of my em-
>|         an engihacker @        |  ployer or the administrator of any computer
>| at&t computer systems division |  upon which I may hack.
>|        skokie, illinois        |
> --------------------------------   Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy

I don't care about your disclaimer.  I'm going to sue AT&T for the nasty things
you have said.  If your opinions are not those of AT&T, then why is AT&T
letting you broadcast them with AT&T equipment, putting their name in the
header of your articles.  I'm going to hold AT&T to everything you say. ;-)

-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473