Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:25911 comp.lang.c++:6468 comp.sys.ibm.pc:44416
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!apollo!nelson_p
From: nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: open this package and you're stuck with it
Message-ID: <48a44d7c.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Date: 14 Feb 90 17:01:00 GMT
Sender: root@apollo.HP.COM
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 45


   I recently posted some problems I've had with the Zortech compiler.

   Another larger question to ask is why this industry insists on
   shipping beta-quality products as finshed products.   When I got
   my Zortech Rev 2.0 package the disk envelope seal was already broken!!!
   I called Zortech and they said that THEY opened the package to insert
   some disks with some last minute changes.   Now they're shipping a
   version 2.06 to fix some more problems.    When I got my QuickC version
   1.00 I found lots of problems, SOME of which were fixed in the vers.
   1.01 that Microsoft shipped a month or so later.    This kind of stuff
   is endemic in the PC business.  

   Part of the problem is that the manufacturers are abusing the 
   "you open it, you can't return it" clause on their packaging.  
   The implicit licensing agreement is supposed to protect them 
   from unauthorized copying but it provides them with an excuse
   to ship expensive junky products knowing that they can't be 
   returned.  If I spend $350 on a TV and I'm not satisfied I can
   return it; if I spend $350 on a C++ compiler I'm stuck with it
   no matter how dissatisfying it is.    This has to change.  Software
   is an increasingly big business and consumers of software deserve
   the same rights and protections that they get for other products.  

   [ some wise-ass is bound to point out that you don't really
     buy the software, you just buy a license to use it.  Fine,
     whatever.  So if I'm not satisfied with my license then
     I ought to have the right to return it for a refund.   ]
   
   As a software developer I'm very sensitive to the need to protect
   the company and to ensure that it is compensated for its work.  
   But it is not clear that allowing the return of an unsatisfying 
   product would make the illicit copying problem any worse than 
   it already is, nor is it clear that we are fully exploiting all
   possible technological fixes to that problem.   Moreover, as a 
   software developer and consumer of software I'm also sensitive
   to the need to improve the quality of the stuff I'm shelling 
   out my money for.   I believe that the right to return (for refund)
   unsatisfying products will create a rapid improvement in quality.

                                                 ---Peter

   PS  -- Who administers consumer protection laws?  I have 
          a feeling that they are state functions but they seem
          to be fairly uniform; is the federal government involved?