Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Archive » net.micro » Your software rights are in danger
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Your software rights are in danger [message #281785] Sat, 14 December 1985 17:38 Go to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU
Article-I.D.: uiucuxa.9400009
Posted: Sat Dec 14 17:38:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Dec-85 03:57:28 EST
Lines: 159
Nf-ID: #N:uiucuxa:9400009:000:9672
Nf-From: uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU!rp321    Dec 14 16:38:00 1985



[ food for thought ]

Hey, all of you out in micro-land!  Look what ADAPSO has foisted on the
Illinois Legislature!  This law virtually wipes out what rights you have
regarding your software.  In my next two postings, I'll include analyses
of this law by attorney Keith Hays of Champaign.

Enjoy! :-)
		Russell J. Price
		USnail: 1111 S. Arbor St.
		        Champaign, IL 61820
 
	The Illinois Software License Enforcement Act
	Taken from LawBoard, Champaign, IL, (217)352-6118
	Operated by Grosser and Hays Law Offices, Champaign, IL


     BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,          53 
REPRESENTED IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY: 
      Section 1.  Title.  This Act shall be known and may be         55 
cited as the Software License Enforcement Act.                      56 
     Section 2.  Definitions.  For purposes of this Act the         58 
following terms shall have the meanings set forth below,            59 
unless the context clearly requires otherwise: 
     "Computer software" means a set of statements or               61 
instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer        62 
in order to bring about a certain result in any form in which       63 
such statements or instructions may be embodied, transmitted        64 
or fixed, by any method now known or hereafter developed,           65 
regardless of whether such statements or instructions are           66 
capable of being perceived by or communicated to humans, and 
includes associated documentation and materials, if any.            67 
     "License agreement" means a written document on which the      69 
word "license", either alone or in combination with other           70 
words, appears conspicuously at or near the top so as to be         71 
readily noticeable to a person viewing the document. 
     "Reverse engineering, decompiling or dissambling" means        73 
a process by which computer software is converted from one          74 
form to another form which is more readily understandable by        75 
human beings, including without limitation decoding or              76 
decrypting computer software which has been encoded or              77 
encrypted in any manner. 
     Section 3.  Requirements for enforceability.  A person         79 
who acquires a copy of computer software will be conclusively       80 
deemed to have accepted and agreed to those provisions of the       81 
license agreement accompanying the copy which are described         82 
in Section 4 below, if: 
     (1)  A written legend or notice is affixed to or packaged      84 
with the copy of computer software and states clearly that          85 
use of the copy of computer software will constitute                86 
acceptance of the terms of the accompanying license                 87 
agreement, or that the opening of a sealed package, envelope 
or container in which the copy of computer software is              88 
contained will constitute acceptance of the terms of the            89 
accompanying license agreement; and 
     (2)  The legend or notice is affixed to or packaged with       91 
the copy of computer software in such a manner that the             92 
legend or notice is clearly and conspicuously visible so as         93 
to be readily noticeable to a person viewing the copy of            94 
software and related packaging; and 
     (3)  The legend or notice is prominently displayed in all      96 
capital letters and in language which is readily                    97 
understandable; and 
     (4)  The legend or notice states clearly that a person         99 
who receives the copy of computer software and does not             100 
accept and agree to the terms of the accompanying license           101 
agreement may, within a reasonable time, return the unused,         102 
unopened copy of computer software to the party from whom it 
was acquired, or to some other identified party, for a full         103 
refund of any money paid for the copy; and                          104 
     (5)  The terms of the accompanying license agreement must      106 
be clearly and conspicuously stated in the license agreement        107 
in language which is readily understandable, and the license        108 
agreement must be attached to or packaged with the computer         109 
software or copy thereof in such a manner that the terms are        110 
readily noticeable before the act which is deemed to 
constitute acceptance occurs; and 
     (6)  The person acquiring the copy of computer software        112 
takes such action as is stated in the legend or notice to           113 
constitute acceptance of and ageement to the terms of the           114 
accompanying license agreement; and 
     (7)  No agreement relating to the use, return, resale,         116 
copying, decompiling, dissambly or other right related to           117 
the computer software has been entered into between the             118 
person acquiring the computer software and the person holding       119 
the title thereto; and 
     (8)  The computer software has not been developed              121 
according to the acquirer's specifications or otherwise             122 
custom-made either by an outside vendor or an internal              123 
department of the acquirer. 
     Section 4.  Terms deemed accepted.  The following              125 
provisions will be deemed to have been accepted under Section       126 
3 above if the provisions are included in a license agreement       127 
which conforms to the provisions of Section 3: 
     (1)  Provisions for the retention of title to the copy of      129 
computer software by a person other than the person                 130 
acquiring the software. 
     (2)  If title to the copy of computer software has been        132 
retained, provisions for the prohibition of any copying of          133 
the copy of computer software for any purpose, limitations on       134 
the purposes for which copies of the computer software can be       135 
made, or limitations on the number of copies of the computer        136 
software which can be made. 
     (3)  If title to the copy of computer software has been        138 
retained, provisions for the prohibition or limitation of           139 
rights to modify or adapt the copy of the computer software         140 
in any way, including without limitation prohibiitions on           141 
translating, decompiling, disassembling, or creating                142 
derivative works based on the computer software. 
     (4)  If title to the copy of computer software has been        144 
retained, provisions for prohibitions on further transfer,          145 
assignment, rental, sale or other disposition of that copy or       146 
any other copies made from that copy of the computer                147 
software. 
     (5)  If title to the copy of computer software has been        149 
retained, provisions for prohibition on the use of the copy         150 
of computer software on more than one computer at the same          151 
time or use of the copy of computer software by more than one       152 
individual user at the same time.                                   152 
     (6)  Provisions for the automatic termination without          154 
notice of the license agreement if one of the foregoing             155 
provisions of the license agreement is breached. 
     (7)  Provisions for award of reasonable attorneys' fees        157 
and court costs to the prevailing party in any action or            158 
proceeding brought in connection with an alleged breach of          159 
one of the foregoing provisions of the license agreement. 
     Section 5.  Enforceability.  The provisions of this Act        161 
will not limit in any manner the effectiveness or                   162 
enforceability of any of the other provisions of a license          163 
agreement accompanying computer software under other                164 
provisions of the laws of this State, whether statutory or 
common law.  The provisions of this Act and the                     165 
enforceability of a license agreement will not be nullified,        166 
curtailed or limited by the manner in which the ownership           167 
rights are held in the medium on which the computer software 
is embedded. 
     Section 6.  Nothing in this Act shall be construed to          169 
alter any rulings of the Illinois Department of Revenue on          170 
the taxable status of computer software under the "Use Tax          171 
Act", approved July 14, 1955, as amended, the "Service Use          172 
Tax Act", approved July 10, 1961, as amended, the "Service          173 
Occupation Tax Act", approved July 10, 1961, as amended, or 
the "Retailers' Occupation Tax Act", approved June 28, 1933,        174 
as amended, or any of their related Acts. 
     Section 7.  Nothing in this Act shall be construed to          176 
affect or alter any existing individual or business rights          177 
granted by the copyright laws of the United States, as now          178 
or hereafter amended, that such individual or business would        179 
have were such individual or business a purchaser of a copy 
of the computer software that is the subject of the license         180 
agreement. 
     Section 8.  Nothing in this Act shall be construed to          182 
alter or amend any provision of the Consumer Fraud and              183 
Deceptive Business Practices Act.                                   183
     Section 9.  This Act shall take effect July 1, 1986.           185
Approved September 25, 1985
Effective: July 1, 1986
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281786 is a reply to message #281785] Sat, 14 December 1985 17:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU
Article-I.D.: uiucuxa.9400010
Posted: Sat Dec 14 17:41:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Dec-85 03:57:43 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa>
Lines: 155
Nf-ID: #R:uiucuxa:9400009:uiucuxa:9400010:000:4701
Nf-From: uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU!rp321    Dec 14 16:41:00 1985



[ more food for thought ]

Here is the first of two discussions of the Illinois Software License Enforce-
ment Act by attorney Keith Hays, Grosser and Hays Law Offices, Champaign, IL.
Taken from the Tranquillity II BBS, Urbana, IL, (217)384-8173.
(from the TQ II magazine)
P.S. Please excuse the 40 column text.  The article is reproduced exactly
as it appears on TQ II, which runs on a TI-99/4A (yes, those machines still
exist :-) )

		Russell J. Price
		USnail: 1111 S. Arbor St.
		        Champaign, IL 61820

///
/ Q II      -------------------
            |        |        |
            |       THE       |
 The Bar    |        |        |
            |        |        |
    at    _LAW_      &      _YOU_
                     |
OLD BAILEY           |
                  |||||||
 
 
 
----------------------------------------
 
    The Illinois Software License
           Enforcement Act
 
             Dec 1, 1985
 
     Last week I looked into the
application of the general law of
Warranty and the Uniform Commercial
Code as applied to software purchases.
The software publishing industry does
not agree with my analysis.  The
industry takes the position that
software is not "sold", but rather it
is licensed to the user.  While this
may seem like arguing about semantics,
the resolution of that disagreement can
have far reaching results.
 
     If the industry prevails in its
position, then the general law of
implied and express warranties does not
apply to computer software distributed
through the marketplace.
 
     The Illinois Software License
Enforcement Act is major victory for
the software industry.  Although the
subject matter is not warranty law,
this legislation legitimizes the
shrinkwrapped license agreement.  Prior
to the enactment of this legislation
the concealed terms of these so-called
agreements was in grave doubt.
 
     When it becomes effective on July
1, 1986, the Act will bind the software
purchaser to the terms of these hidden
contracts.  While the language of the
act disclaims any application of its
terms to alter express or implied
warranty law, its implicit definition
of the transaction as a licensing
arrangement rather than a sale has the
effect of drastically reducing the
consumers remedy for shoddy and
inoperable commercial programs.
 
     We, the end users, are in the
middle of a conceptual debate.  The
question is whether a computer program
is an article of merchandise or the
expression of an intellectual idea.
 
     The former concept regards
programmatic material as a tool.  A
hammer, for example is an article of
merchandise that has a specific
purpose.  When you buy that tool, the
law recognises that you have the right
to expect that it will perform the
function for which it was intended.
 
     The latter concept regards the
program as though it were a
composition.  Books and works of music
may be intended to convey a specific
message, but they do not come with a
warranty that the reader or listener
will derive the meaning that the author
of the work intended to convey.
 
     When you look at the nature of
software, you begin to see the problem.
Software is a tool.  We acquire it to
accomplish a particular function.  We
part with our cash in the expectation
that it will perform its intended task.
On the otherhand the courts have held
that software is not patentable, but
rather it is an article of intellectual
property, similar to books and music.
 
     Patented devices have a built in
protection against duplication.  Most
of us have not the necessary skill,
equipment nor raw materials to
duplicate a hammer.  Most of us do have
the skill and equipment to copy the
tools we use on our computers.  The
evolution of legal mechanisms to
protect the legitimate concerns of
software developers will require
legislative solution.
 
     The danger, as represented by the
Illinois Software License Enforcement
Act is that it will tip the balance of
interests between developer and user
too far to the developers benefit and
gives no protection to the consumer.
Indeed, the software company is not
only given the protection of the hidden
contract terms, but the act encourages
lawsuits against individual consumers.
The prevailing software company is to
be awarded its attorney's fees and
costs but the sucessful defendant gets
no such reward.
 
     The Illinois Software License
Enforcement Act is a ticking time bomb,
set to go off next July 1.  When it
explodes, any rights you may have to
expect that the program you buy will do
what it claims to do, may well be a
casualty of the blast
 
              -==< * >==-
 
L Keith Hays
Grosser  Hays Law Office
702 Bloomington Rd
Champaign IL  61820
(217)) 352-2784
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281787 is a reply to message #281785] Sat, 14 December 1985 17:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU
Article-I.D.: uiucuxa.9400011
Posted: Sat Dec 14 17:43:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Dec-85 03:57:58 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa>
Lines: 157
Nf-ID: #R:uiucuxa:9400009:uiucuxa:9400011:000:4707
Nf-From: uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU!rp321    Dec 14 16:43:00 1985



[ still more food for thought ]

Here is the second discussion of the Illinois Software License Enforcement Act,
by Keith Hays, Grosser and Hays Law Offices, Champaign, IL.  Taken from the
Tranquillity II BBS, Urbana, IL, (217)384-8173. (from the Magazine section)

		Russell J. Price
		USnail: 1111 S. Arbor St.
		        Champaign, IL 61820

///
/ Q II      -------------------
            |        |        |
            |       THE       |
 The Bar    |        |        |
            |        |        |
    at    _LAW_      &      _YOU_
                     |
OLD BAILEY           |
                  |||||||
 
----------------------------------------
 
    The Illinois Software License
     Enforcement Act, an Anaysis
 
           --< Dec 8 1985>-
 
     The Illinois Software License
Enforcement Act (approved Sept.  25,
1985, effective July 1, 1986) imposes
the provisions of a contract by
operation of law upon the purchaser of
computer software.  The law often
imposes duties and confers rights upon
contracting parties, but in most
instances where it does so, those
provisions are spelled out by the
legislation and provision is made for
the exclusion of those terms by the
parties in their formation of the
contract between them.
 
     The provisions of the Uniform
Commercial Code concerning the
imposition of express and implied
Warranty are an example.  In this case,
the specific terms of the contract
which the law imposes are not specified
by the legislation, but rather are left
to the discretion of the dominate party
in the transaction.  The legislation
permits the software manufacturing
concern to draft its own contract and
imposes those terms by operation of
law.
 
     In analysing the effect of the law
we must assume that the software
manufacturer will impose the most
restrictive provisions that are
permitted.  With that in mind, the
following is an analysis of the
provisions Section 4 of the Act.
 
     Paragraph 1 of the Act insures
that title to the software will never
pass to the purchaser.  This provision
will operate in all instances to define
the transaction between the
manufacturer, retailer and user as a
licensing transaction.  The impact of
this definition has more far reaching
consequences than the question of
controlling software piracy.  The
definition of the transaction as a
license rather than as a sale will
render the provisions of the Uniform
Commercial Code inapplicable to the
software marketplace unless it is
accompanied with additional legislation
to protect the user.
 
     Paragraph 2 imposes an outright
ban on making copies of the software
for any purpose.  In my view the
provisions of Section 7 with regard to
the effect of general copyright laws
does not alter the effect of this
provision.  It is axiomatic that the
partes may alter the rights provided
for by the general law by contract.
 
     The provisions of this section are
specific to the question of copies and
would be construed to limit notions of
fair use and the right to make copies.
Unless it is the purpose of the
legislature to abrogate the general
copyright law of the U.S., then this
section should read: "Except as
permitted by rights granted under the
copyright laws of the United
States,***".
 
     Paragraph 3 limits the right to
customise the software to your own
purposes.  As an example, programs
developed for the IBM-PC could not be
purchased and adapted for use on the
Tandy 1000, even though the purchaser
paid the full price for the program
and intended only to run it on his own
machine.  The development of patches
and enhancements to published software
would be unlawful.  Public Domain
patches would be a thing of the past.
 
     Paragraph 4 would prohibit the
transfer of programs by the original
retail purchaser.  Software libraries
could not be sold or given away with
the sale of a used computer.  Under the
terms of the Act, this section's
limitation would apply to even to
sofware installed in ROM by the
equipment manufacturer.  It would be
unlawfull to sell your used TRS-80
Model 100.
 
     Paragraph 5 limits the use of
purchased software to one user at one
computer.  It would make unlawful the
purchase of one program disc by a two
man office.
 
     Paragraph 6 permits confiscation
without notice of the program you
bought if the manufacturer discovered a
violation of any of these terms.
 
     Paragraph 7 provides that the user
will pay the cost of the company suing
the individual user.  This provision
encourages the manufacturer to file
suit against the user for even the most
petty violation of the license "agree-
ment!"
 
L KEITH HAYS
Grosser and Hays Law Office
702 Bloomington Rd
Champaign IL  61820
(217) 352-2784
 
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281788 is a reply to message #281785] Sat, 14 December 1985 17:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU
Article-I.D.: uiucuxa.9400012
Posted: Sat Dec 14 17:49:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Dec-85 03:58:12 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa>
Lines: 14
Nf-ID: #R:uiucuxa:9400009:uiucuxa:9400012:000:548
Nf-From: uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU!rp321    Dec 14 16:49:00 1985


[ why is the line eater still around? ]

As you see, the Illinois Software License Enforcement Act sets a dangerous
precedent.  If you live in Illinois, WRITE YOUR LEGISLATORS AND PRESS FOR THE
REPEAL OF THIS SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED SLAP IN THE FACE OF COMPUTER USERS!
If you live elsewhere, WRITE YOUR LEGSLATORS AND ASK THEM NOT TO PASS ANY
SUCH LAWS!  Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members!

>> LET'S NOT ALLOW THE BIG PUBLISHERS TO TRAMPLE OUR RIGHTS! <<

	Russell J. Price
	USnail: 1111 S. Arbor St.
		Champaign, IL 61820
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281804 is a reply to message #281785] Mon, 16 December 1985 01:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.11250
Posted: Mon Dec 16 01:24:01 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Dec-85 04:11:31 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <9400012@uiucuxa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 22

In article <9400012@uiucuxa> rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU writes:
>
>As you see, the Illinois Software License Enforcement Act sets a dangerous
>precedent.  If you live in Illinois, WRITE YOUR LEGISLATORS AND PRESS FOR THE
>REPEAL OF THIS SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED SLAP IN THE FACE OF COMPUTER USERS!
>If you live elsewhere, WRITE YOUR LEGSLATORS AND ASK THEM NOT TO PASS ANY
>SUCH LAWS!  Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members!
>
>>> LET'S NOT ALLOW THE BIG PUBLISHERS TO TRAMPLE OUR RIGHTS! <<
>
   I'm afraid I don't see what you object to in the law as distributed.  All it
   says is that the purchaser has the obligation to comply with restrictions
   imposed on the use of the software by the distributor.  If you don't like
   the restrictions, don't buy the product.  This is called the "free market,"
   and I think most people are in favor of it.
   Personally, I certainly do not plan to buy any software which restricts me
   from disassembling or modifying it.  When the legislature decides to force
   me to buy such software, then I will object.
   In the absence of a monopoly or cartel, which the software industry is not,
   competition should serve to enforce the desires of the marketplace.

   -- David desJardins
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281807 is a reply to message #281785] Sun, 15 December 1985 23:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hes is currently offline  hes
Messages: 67
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Member
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.926
Posted: Sun Dec 15 23:13:08 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Dec-85 04:49:34 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <9400011@uiucuxa>
Organization: NC State Univ.
Lines: 54

> Here is the second discussion of the Illinois Software License Enforcement Act,
> by Keith Hays, Grosser and Hays Law Offices, Champaign, IL.  Taken from the
> Tranquillity II BBS, Urbana, IL, (217)384-8173. (from the Magazine section)
> ----------------------------------------
>  
>     The Illinois Software License
>      Enforcement Act, an Anaysis
>  
>            --< Dec 8 1985>-
>  
>      The Illinois Software License
> Enforcement Act (approved Sept.  25,
> 1985, effective July 1, 1986) imposes
> the provisions of a contract by
> operation of law upon the purchaser of
> computer software.  ...
>  
>      In analysing the effect of the law
> we must assume that the software
> manufacturer will impose the most
> restrictive provisions that are
> permitted.  With that in mind, the
> following is an analysis of the
> provisions Section 4 of the Act.
> ...
>  
>      Paragraph 3 limits the right to
> customise the software to your own
> purposes. ...
>           The development of patches
> and enhancements to published software
> would be unlawful.  Public Domain
> patches would be a thing of the past.
   This could be a major disaster!
>  
>      Paragraph 4 would prohibit the
> transfer of programs by the original
> retail purchaser.  ...
   This could be applied to the operating system,
and then the manufacturer could have a lock on
the sale of used equipment!  (Don't laugh, this
has been done in the minicomputer area.)
>  
>      Paragraph 5 limits the use of
> purchased software to one user at one
> computer.  It would make unlawful the
> purchase of one program disc by a two
> man office.
   I disagree with this interpretation.  Paragraph
5 clearly states the one user at one computer to
be *at one time*.  
>  ...
> L KEITH HAYS
--henry schaffer
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281810 is a reply to message #281785] Mon, 16 December 1985 22:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magik is currently offline  magik
Messages: 8
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: chinet.249
Posted: Mon Dec 16 22:45:09 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Dec-85 02:54:43 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <9400012@uiucuxa>
Reply-To: magik@chinet.UUCP (Ben Liberman)
Organization: chi-net, Public Access UN*X, Chicago IL
Lines: 36

[^^o^^}

In article <9400012@uiucuxa> you write:
>
>As you see, the Illinois Software License Enforcement Act sets a dangerous
>precedent.  If you live in Illinois, WRITE YOUR LEGISLATORS AND PRESS FOR THE
>REPEAL OF THIS SNEAKY, UNDERHANDED SLAP IN THE FACE OF COMPUTER USERS!
>If you live elsewhere, WRITE YOUR LEGSLATORS AND ASK THEM NOT TO PASS ANY
>SUCH LAWS!  Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members!
>
>>> LET'S NOT ALLOW THE BIG PUBLISHERS TO TRAMPLE OUR RIGHTS! <<
>
>	Russell J. Price
>	USnail: 1111 S. Arbor St.
>		Champaign, IL 61820

Maybe it's time to strike at the root of the problem, the ADAPSO member 
companys.  It seems logical that a REAL threat to their future business
viability might get them to use as much muscle to undo these laws as they 
used to have them enacted.  The greatest threat to any of these companys
would be products that do at least as much or more and are put in the public
domain.  If we show the ability to wipe out only 1 major product, these companys
will take notice.
   I, for one, am willing to put some money behind such a project (it would take
the time and efforts of some good freelance developers to do the trick).
  Is anyone else out there interested?
  If so, send me your path and a list of what you are willing to contirbute
(such as time, development efforts, legal expertise, etc.)
   
  I will keep net.micro posted on progress if there is enough interest.

-----------------------------------------
Ben Liberman           ihnp4!chinet!magik
-- 
-----------------------------------------
Ben Liberman           ihnp4!chinet!magik
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281816 is a reply to message #281785] Mon, 16 December 1985 10:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
oyster is currently offline  oyster
Messages: 11
Registered: January 1986
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1808
Posted: Mon Dec 16 10:09:17 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Dec-85 04:59:47 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <9400012@uiucuxa>
Reply-To: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster)
Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center
Lines: 7

In article <9400012@uiucuxa> rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU writes:
>Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members!
>
>>> LET'S NOT ALLOW THE BIG PUBLISHERS TO TRAMPLE OUR RIGHTS! <<
>
   I've never noticed the letters "ADAPSO" before.  Perhaps we could start
by identifying who these ADAPSO members are.
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281817 is a reply to message #281785] Mon, 16 December 1985 13:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jp is currently offline  jp
Messages: 53
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
Member
Article-I.D.: lanl.34907
Posted: Mon Dec 16 13:59:53 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Dec-85 05:01:27 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <9400012@uiucuxa>
Reply-To: jp@a.UUCP (James Potter)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 6



Who are the members of the organization responsible for promoting this
legislation??

Jim Potter jp@lanl.arpa
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281839 is a reply to message #281785] Tue, 17 December 1985 19:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.11259
Posted: Tue Dec 17 19:59:50 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Dec-85 04:48:16 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <9400012@uiucuxa> <1808@uwmacc.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 17

In article <1808@uwmacc.UUCP> oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) writes:
>
>   I've never noticed the letters "ADAPSO" before.  Perhaps we could start
>by identifying who these ADAPSO members are.
>
   ADAPSO is an association of software publishers who are trying to work
together on copy-protection schemes.  Among other things, they have proposed
a hardware-based protection system based on a box attached to the serial port
and a ROM-based key with each program.  They haven't been very successful with
this, in part because the Justice Dept. has not (so far) given them permission 
to develop a standard (since so many competing software houses are part of
ADAPSO, its actions could be anticompetitive).  Note that this will not prevent
such schemes from eventually being used, but may mean that they will have to be
developed by non-software publishers.
   ADAPSO has also spent money on advertising and to promote legislation.

   -- David desJardins
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281843 is a reply to message #281785] Mon, 16 December 1985 15:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RALPHW[1][2] is currently offline  RALPHW[1][2]
Messages: 8
Registered: December 1985
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: ius2.280
Posted: Mon Dec 16 15:58:33 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Dec-85 05:51:09 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <9400012@uiucuxa>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 24

In article <9400012@uiucuxa> rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU writes:
>...  Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members!

Good idea, with no members ADAPSO won't be able to lobby for 
riciulous laws like this.  

By the way, what's happening in California?  Last I heard they were about
to outlaw shrink-wrap licensing agreements.  What finally happened?

I'll work on getting the boycott list together, so that the threat of a
boycott will seem more serious if we have a list of members.

First I'll call ADAPSO to try to obtain a membership list.
If that fails I'll start calling publishers and asking them directly.

						- Ralph


-- 
					- Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.

Internet: ralphw@c.cs.cmu.edu (cmu-cs-c.arpa)	Usenet: ralphw@mit-eddie.uucp
Fido: Ralph Hyre at Net 129, Node 0 (Pitt-Bull) Phone: (412)578-2847,578-3275
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281847 is a reply to message #281785] Thu, 19 December 1985 10:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
oz is currently offline  oz
Messages: 78
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
Member
Article-I.D.: yetti.290
Posted: Thu Dec 19 10:09:38 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Dec-85 14:31:34 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <9400010@uiucuxa>
Reply-To: oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Organization: York University Computer Science
Lines: 31
Summary: 

>     The danger, as represented by the
>Illinois Software License Enforcement
>Act is that it will tip the balance of
>interests between developer and user
>too far to the developers benefit and
>gives no protection to the consumer.
>Indeed, the software company is not
>only given the protection of the hidden
>contract terms, but the act encourages
>lawsuits against individual consumers.
>		.
>		.
>L Keith Hays
>Grosser  Hays Law Office

Are you still wondering why Richard Stallman blasts off to the
ceiling when the topic of "software developers" come up ?? His
GNU effort is looking more and more attractive every passing day,
in light of such laws that protect the "developer" to an extent
that "user" is now a true synonym of "luser" !!

UH ?? YOU BOUGHT OUR SOFTWARE ?? NOW WE GOT YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[add soundtrack for maniacal laughter, giggles and a thud for
the user's body hitting the floor.. he/she just passed out..]

Oz
-- 
Usenet: [decvax|allegra|linus|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz
Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti]
		In the beginning, there was Word all right, except
		it wasn't fixed number of bits.
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281851 is a reply to message #281785] Tue, 17 December 1985 13:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: hammen@gumby.UUCP
Article-I.D.: gumby.1
Posted: Tue Dec 17 13:24:17 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Dec-85 00:45:48 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <9400012@uiucuxa> <1808@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 28

> In article <9400012@uiucuxa> rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU writes:
> >Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members!
> >
> >>> LET'S NOT ALLOW THE BIG PUBLISHERS TO TRAMPLE OUR RIGHTS! <<
> >
>    I've never noticed the letters "ADAPSO" before.  Perhaps we could start
> by identifying who these ADAPSO members are.

*** REPLACE THIS MESS WITH YOUR LINEAGE ***

  ADAPSO stands for something like Association of Data Processing something
  or other.  One of the big guys in ADAPSO is Mitch Kapor of Lotus.  You know,
  the guy who said he wouldn't even sell an unprotected version of 1-2-3 to his
  grandmother.  
       Anyway, anybody who tries to shove this law down people's throats should
  have their products boycotted.  I completely resent the fact that under this
  law, I cannot legally modify the programs I have purchased so that they will
  RUN on my machine.  For example, I have a couple of software packages for the
  Macintosh that will not run on the Mac XL due to their protection scheme: if
  it is removed, the programs work perfectly!  Another example: I know someone
  who has an IBM EGA and was trying to run 1-2-3 on it.  While there was a 
  patch out there to do it, Lotus forced people to stop distributing it.  Their
  "solution" to his problem involved him paying the $150 or so to upgrade to
  Release 2.  Ridiculous!  
						Robert J. Hammen
						U of Wisc. CS Dept.
						Manta Software Corp.
						!uwvax!gumby!hammen
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281854 is a reply to message #281785] Tue, 17 December 1985 15:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hes is currently offline  hes
Messages: 67
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Member
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.941
Posted: Tue Dec 17 15:51:23 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Dec-85 01:31:28 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <9400012@uiucuxa> <1808@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: NC State Univ.
Lines: 19

> In article <9400012@uiucuxa> rp321@uiucuxa.CSO.UIUC.EDU writes:
> >Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members!
> >
> >>> LET'S NOT ALLOW THE BIG PUBLISHERS TO TRAMPLE OUR RIGHTS! <<
> >
>    I've never noticed the letters "ADAPSO" before.  Perhaps we could start
> by identifying who these ADAPSO members are.
   I don't know who the members are, but

The Association of Data Processing Service Organizations
1300 North Seventeenth St.
Arlington, VA  22209
(703) 522-5055

is an organization (including many software houses) which is
fighting software piracy.  They also have a free pamphlet on
this subject, write for a copy - or call and ask for Priscilla.
I imagine they would also give you a list of their members.
--henry schaffer
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281873 is a reply to message #281785] Thu, 19 December 1985 00:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: schuler@gondor.UUCP (David W. Schuler)
Article-I.D.: gondor.1950
Posted: Thu Dec 19 00:32:25 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Dec-85 05:43:06 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <9400011@uiucuxa>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 8

With these facts in mind, I think that the first thing
the Ill. legislature should do is lock up ALL of the
people in the government who use computers.  Everyone
has violated at least one of these sections of the
proposed bill at any one time.  

Let's hit hard at home.  Make them enforce the laws with
their own people.  Arrest ALL Ill. state workers NOW.
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281883 is a reply to message #281785] Thu, 19 December 1985 11:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
friesen is currently offline  friesen
Messages: 49
Registered: October 1985
Karma: 0
Member
Article-I.D.: psivax.916
Posted: Thu Dec 19 11:02:57 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Dec-85 01:18:03 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <9400012@uiucuxa> <1808@uwmacc.UUCP> <1@gumby.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 18

In article <1@gumby.UUCP> hammen@gumby.UUCP writes:

>> >Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members!
>
>       Anyway, anybody who tries to shove this law down people's throats should
>  have their products boycotted.  I completely resent the fact that under this
>  law, I cannot legally modify the programs I have purchased so that they will
>  RUN on my machine.

        Actually, I am already effectively boycotting ADAPSO members,
I simply refuse to buy copy-protected software! My own method of
combating software piracy is to simply have nothing to do with it.
--

                                Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
Relay-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site sdcrdcf.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Your software rights are in danger
Message-ID: <916@psivax.UUCP>
Date: 19 Dec 85 16:02:57 GMT
Date-Received: 19 Dec 85 18:41:41 GMT
References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <9400012@uiucuxa> <1808@uwmacc.UUCP> <1@gumby.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 18

In article <1@gumby.UUCP> hammen@gumby.UUCP writes:

>> >Finally, BOYCOTT software products published by ADAPSO members!
>
>       Anyway, anybody who tries to shove this law down people's throats should
>  have their products boycotted.  I completely resent the fact that under this
>  law, I cannot legally modify the programs I have purchased so that they will
>  RUN on my machine.

        Actually, I am already effectively boycotting ADAPSO members,
I simply refuse to buy copy-protected software! My own method of
combating software piracy is to simply have nothing to do with it.
--

                                Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281889 is a reply to message #281785] Wed, 18 December 1985 17:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: desj@brahms.berkeley.edu (David desJardins)
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.856
Posted: Wed Dec 18 17:18:08 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Dec-85 05:15:56 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 6

Certainly I agree that software should be subject to the certain implicit
warranties as other products.  But I think this is a separate issue.
   Note that the Illinois law (which you may not have read) allows you to
return the software within a period of time rather than accept the license
agreement.
  -- David
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281897 is a reply to message #281785] Wed, 18 December 1985 12:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: sienkiew@louie.udel.edu
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.826
Posted: Wed Dec 18 12:20:42 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Dec-85 06:13:45 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 31

The unhealthy part of this law is that appears to grant publishers the right
to claim any license agreement that they want.

I have NEVER NEVER NEVER seen a license agreement that guarentees some
measure of reliability for the software.  If it doesn't work, you have NO
RECOURSE AT ALL.

If you don't buy software that has license agreements like that, you probably
won't be buying much at all.  Imagine what it would be like if you bought a
new car and the manufacturer didn't even have to guarentee that it could move
under it's own power!

Example from Apple's license agreement:

5. Limitations on warranty and liability.  Except as expressely provided above
for media, APPLE, is Software Supplier, Distributors and Dealers make no
warranties, either express or implied, with respect to the APPLE Software, its
merchantability or its fitness for any particular purpose.  The entire risk as
to it's quality and performance is with you.  Should the APPLE Software prove defective, you (and not APPLE, it Supplier, Distributor, or Dealer) assume the
entire cost of all necessary serviceing, repair or correction and any incidental or consequential damages.

etc...

Now suppose that this was a shrink-wrap license under the Illinois law.  And
suppose you bought the software by mail-order.  You cannot determine if it
works without accepting the license agreement.

----

A point to ponder:  Why doesn't the law require that the software must live up
to all the claims made by it's publisher???
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281899 is a reply to message #281785] Wed, 18 December 1985 20:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: jlg%a@lanl.arpa (Jim Giles)
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.867
Posted: Wed Dec 18 20:01:41 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Dec-85 06:17:25 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 13

In article <35030@lanl.ARPA> info-micro-request@BRL.ARPA writes:
>From: David desJardins 
>   Note that the Illinois law (which you may not have read) allows you to
>return the software within a period of time rather than accept the license
>agreement.

Unfortunately, this applies only to unopened software.  You still can't
return the software if it doesn't do the job you bought it for.  As someone
already pointed out - you don't know if it's going to work until you've
tried it.

J. Giles
Los Alamos
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281917 is a reply to message #281785] Thu, 19 December 1985 15:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: ins_aeas@jhunix.UUCP (Earle A .Sugar)
Article-I.D.: jhunix.1478
Posted: Thu Dec 19 15:35:24 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Dec-85 00:47:19 EST
References: <856@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
Lines: 32

>    Note that the Illinois law (which you may not have read) allows you to
> return the software within a period of time rather than accept the license
> agreement.
>   -- David
Yes, but is this grace period after purchase but before opening the package 
or is if after opening the package and verifying that the software does 
indeed work?  Remember, most software "licensing agreements" require you 
to accept disclaimer of all implied warranties BEFORE you open the package 
to verify that the software runs.  Another thing that makes me queasy is that 
the law requires that you accept the provision in licensing agreements that 
that prevents you from customizing the software for your own use.  A good 
analogy for this would be if you had a Chevy and could be sued by GM for putting 
a Die-Hard (TM) in your car to replace the weak stock battery.  Or, better yet, 
buying sheet music, and writing notes in the margin, and getting sued by the 
publisher.[
    One final question: Ashton-Tate's license agreement states that the 
DBASE III package is a "non-published, copyrighted work".  Aren't these 
two terms contradictory under U.S. copyright law?  If not, how can something 
that has scores of thousands of (legal) copies in the field be considered 
"unpublished"?

-- 
______________________________________________________________________________

Earle A. Sugar
Disclaimer:"I doubt anyone else here agrees with me."
          USENET: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_aeas
          CSNET:ins_aeas@jhunix.csnet
          ARPA:ins_aeas%jhunix.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
	  BITNET: INS_BEAS@JHUVMS (as a last resort)
"If you don't expect anything, you'll never be dissappointed."
	  or call 301-889-0815 after 6 P.M. EST
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281927 is a reply to message #281785] Fri, 20 December 1985 13:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
msc is currently offline  msc
Messages: 46
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
Member
Article-I.D.: saber.1892
Posted: Fri Dec 20 13:59:10 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Dec-85 01:19:30 EST
References: <856@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Saber Technology, San Jose, CA
Lines: 22

David DesJardins writes:
> Certainly I agree that software should be subject to the certain implicit
> warranties as other products.  But I think this is a separate issue.
>    Note that the Illinois law (which you may not have read) allows you to
> return the software within a period of time rather than accept the license
> agreement.

Maybe you haven't read the law.  It says the software must be returned
*unopened*.  It also says that opening it is deemed acceptance of the
licence terms.  However until you open it and try it you can't be
sure it will do the job you want.  By then it is too late.  And since
the seller refuses to guarantee it will do what they claim you are
up shit creek without a paddle.

In contrast, if you buy a tool at, say, Sear's and it doesn't do the
job you wanted -- not a powerful enough drill, for example -- you can
take it back and exchange it or get your money back.  The same rights
should be available to purchasers of software tools.
-- 
From the TARDIS of Mark Callow
msc@saber.uucp,  sun!saber!msc@decwrl.dec.com ...{ihnp4,sun}!saber!msc
"Boards are long and hard and made of wood"
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281929 is a reply to message #281785] Fri, 20 December 1985 12:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
dgary is currently offline  dgary
Messages: 105
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.963
Posted: Fri Dec 20 12:11:11 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Dec-85 01:28:48 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <9400010@uiucuxa> <290@yetti.UUCP>
Reply-To: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady)
Organization: Duke U Comp Ctr
Lines: 24

Several posters have lamented the poor warranties accompanying most
software products for the micro market.  It's worth looking at this from
the publisher's point of view:  In our litigious age warranting the
performance of software invites lawsuits for millions of dollars in
consequential damages.  Would you be willing to bet your whole company
that a complicated program you sell is completely free from any and all
bugs, that the documentation is in no respect misleading, etc. etc.
etc.??

On the other hand, I certainly do think that software that fails to
perform up to the publisher's claims should be returnable for a full and
immediate refund.  And contrary to what someone suggested, there is a
great deal of software sold on this basis (Mark DeSmet C springs to
mind).  We should encourage these publishers and work for legislation
extending the Magnusson-Moss "implied warranty of merchantability or
fitness for a particular purpose" to all software.

By the way, most of these comments have pertained to US law.  How are
things elsewhere?
-- 
D Gary Grady
Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC  27706
(919) 684-3695
USENET:  {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281931 is a reply to message #281785] Sat, 21 December 1985 01:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mball is currently offline  mball
Messages: 2
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: noscvax.151
Posted: Sat Dec 21 01:19:52 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Dec-85 05:36:35 EST
References: <826@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: mball@cod.UUCP (Michael S. Ball)
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 53

In article <826@brl-tgr.ARPA> sienkiew@louie.udel.edu writes:

>I have NEVER NEVER NEVER seen a license agreement that guarentees some
>measure of reliability for the software.  If it doesn't work, you have NO
>RECOURSE AT ALL.
>
  :
>A point to ponder:  Why doesn't the law require that the software must live up
>to all the claims made by it's publisher???

There are companies who try to be fair, but the lawyers frequently limit
what they can say.  Consider the following, from Oregon Software's License
agreement:


    "Oregon Software warrents that the Software conforms to the product
    description applicable at the time of the order.  Oregon Software
    will refund the License fee if, within 30 days of first receipt of
    the Software Licensee returns the Software accompanied by evidence
    that it does not conform to the product description.  Oregon Software
    will provide written response to documented reports of Software
    errors and will make any announced Software ipdates available to
    Licensee for one year from receipt of the original Software;
    however, Oregon Software does not guarantee that all Software
    errors will be corrected or that updates will be compatible with
    previous versions.  The charge per update shall be the costs of
    media, handling and shipping plus twenty-five (25) U.S. dollars.
    Licensee's Softwere Support Contact Person will present any
    warranty claims and receive any notices or updates.

    "Except for the express warranties stated above, Oregon Software
    disclaims all warranties on the Software furnished hereunder,
    including all implied warranties of merchantability ond fitness.
    The stated express warranties are in lieu of all obligations or
    liability on the part of Oregon Software for damages, including
    but not limited to special, indirect, or consequential damages
    arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of
    the Software."

Of course in this case the software costs several thousand dollars,
comes with support, and isn't shipped until after the license agreement
is signed.  It gets a bit harder with $50 items.

What you really want to say is "we do the best we can, but all
software has bugs and we can't claim to be any different."

It's an interesting and very hard problem, given our current
legal climate.

Mike Ball
TauMetric Corporation
1094 Cudahy Pl. Ste 302
San Diego, CA 92110
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281932 is a reply to message #281785] Sun, 22 December 1985 09:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
lamy is currently offline  lamy
Messages: 8
Registered: September 1985
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: utai.1099
Posted: Sun Dec 22 09:06:09 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Dec-85 09:42:53 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <9400010@uiucuxa> <290@yetti.UUCP> <963@ecsvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: lamy@utai.UUCP (Jean-Francois Lamy)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 34
Summary: Is behaviour X a bug or a feature?

In article <963@ecsvax.UUCP> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) writes:
>On the other hand, I certainly do think that software that fails to
>perform up to the publisher's claims should be returnable for a full and
>immediate refund.

This only applies for clear-cut cases, such as gross misrepresentation
(e.g. fallacious benchmark figures, missing features). However one can
certainly do text processing using a Paint program.  I think it is
more often the case that a program is ILL-SUITED. Can we really expect
a legal imposition of "Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back"
warranties?  Does this really apply to software which you tried out at
your friendly neighbourhood computer shop?  Or would it only apply to the
"mail-order" category (Under Quebec laws returning a merchandise within
7 days in it's original packaging (which you are allowed to open)
intitles you to a full refund -- I do not know if this would override
the licensing agreement).

I find it amusing that a lot of software is sold the same way miracle
medicines are...

>extending the Magnusson-Moss "implied warranty of merchantability or
>fitness for a particular purpose" to all software.

Eh? (for American readers: Huh?).

-- 

Jean-Francois Lamy
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto,
Departement d'informatique et de recherche operationnelle, U. de Montreal.

CSNet:      lamy@toronto.csnet
UUCP:       {utzoo,ihnp4,decwrl,uw-beaver}!utcsri!utai!lamy
CDN:        lamy@iro.udem.cdn (lamy%iro.udem.cdn@ubc.csnet)
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281933 is a reply to message #281785] Fri, 20 December 1985 12:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
irwin is currently offline  irwin
Messages: 8
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.10400214
Posted: Fri Dec 20 12:52:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Dec-85 04:11:27 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa>
Lines: 19
Nf-ID: #R:uiucuxa:9400009:uiucdcs:10400214:000:732
Nf-From: uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU!irwin    Dec 20 11:52:00 1985


 
>>     Paragraph 4 would prohibit the
>>transfer of programs by the original
>>retail purchaser.  Software libraries
>>could not be sold or given away with
>>the sale of a used computer.  Under the
>>terms of the Act, this section's
>>limitation would apply to even to
>>sofware installed in ROM by the
>>equipment manufacturer.  It would be
>>unlawfull to sell your used TRS-80
>>Model 100.
 
.......and if the above is true, you can't sell your used car, until
you remove the micro and throw it in the garbage can, (you can't smash
it with a hammer, as that alters the firmware in the rom) and you can't
sell your house, because the heating/airconditioning system is micro
processor controlled and contains a rom.......... :-)
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281935 is a reply to message #281785] Sat, 21 December 1985 08:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ugthomas is currently offline  ugthomas
Messages: 27
Registered: June 2013
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: sunybcs.2647
Posted: Sat Dec 21 08:43:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Dec-85 04:18:37 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <9400012@uiucuxa> <1808@uwmacc.UUCP> <1@gumby.UUCP>
Reply-To: ugthomas@gort.UUCP (Timothy Thomas)
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
Lines: 27
Summary: 


 > 				  I completely resent the fact that under this
 >law, I cannot legally modify the programs I have purchased so that they will
 >RUN on my machine

I agree.  I feel if I have purchased some software, I should be able to
do anything I want with it provided that I do not distribute it to other
people.  I dont know of anything else in the world that you can buy which
prohibits your modification or destruction of it.  Modifying the programs
you purchase can not affect the distributer in any way as long as you are
the registered owner of it.  Sometimes I like to change simple text and
help screens in a program to make it easier to use and understand.  There
is no way anybody can prevent me from doing this.  If they want to take
the responsibility of making program modifications to suit every 
owners needs, then fine.  But no reasonable sized (even small) company can
afford the time and effort (obviously) to do this.

-- 

____________   ____/--\____ 
\______  ___) (   _    ____)     "Damn it Jim!,
     __| |____/  / `--'            I'm a programmer not a Doctor!"   
     )           `|=(-
     \------------'
   Timothy D. Thomas                 SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
   UUCP:  [decvax,dual,rocksanne,watmath,rocksvax]!sunybcs!ugthomas
   CSnet: ugthomas@buffalo,   ARPAnet: ugthomas%buffalo@CSNET-RELAY  
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281950 is a reply to message #281785] Sun, 22 December 1985 15:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
dgary is currently offline  dgary
Messages: 105
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.978
Posted: Sun Dec 22 15:11:32 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 00:56:16 EST
References: <856@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1478@jhunix.UUCP>
Reply-To: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady)
Organization: Duke U Comp Ctr
Lines: 31
Keywords: copyright law
Summary: Why Ashton-Tate claims dBASE not "published"

In article <1478@jhunix.UUCP> ins_aeas@jhunix.UUCP (Earle A .Sugar) writes:
>    One final question: Ashton-Tate's license agreement states that the 
>DBASE III package is a "non-published, copyrighted work".  Aren't these 
>two terms contradictory under U.S. copyright law?  If not, how can something 
>that has scores of thousands of (legal) copies in the field be considered 
>"unpublished"?

(1) Used to be a work had to be published to secure copyright in the US;
that changed with the new copyright act that took effect in 1978.

(2) This business of dBASE being a "non-published, copyrighted work" is
an example of a lawyer playing CYA[1].  A non-published work can be
protected as a trade secret.  (One of the reasons for prohibiting
"reverse engineering" in licence agreements is to give credence to the
trade secret argument.)  The idea is that even if Ashton-Tate can't get
you for copyright violation (if you can somehow squirm out on a
technicality), they have trade secret violation as a fallback position.
The law is still a little vague, but there seems to be no reason a work
can't be protected by both copyright and trade secret.

(3) I think the claim that dBASE is non-published is a ludicrous
corruption of the meaning of the word, but you can't blame them for
trying.

(4) Again, I'm not a lawyer; my interest in copyright law is purely
amateur.  See a real lawyer if you need legal advice.
-- 
D Gary Grady
Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC  27706
(919) 684-3695
USENET:  {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281951 is a reply to message #281785] Sun, 22 December 1985 20:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hes is currently offline  hes
Messages: 67
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Member
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.979
Posted: Sun Dec 22 20:55:51 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 00:57:32 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <10400214@uiucdcs>
Organization: NC State Univ.
Lines: 26

> >>     Paragraph 4 would prohibit the
> >>transfer of programs by the original
> >>retail purchaser.  Software libraries
> >>could not be sold or given away with
> >>the sale of a used computer.  Under the
> >>terms of the Act, this section's
> >>limitation would apply to even to
> >>sofware installed in ROM by the
> >>equipment manufacturer.  It would be
> >>unlawfull to sell your used TRS-80
> >>Model 100.
>  
> .......and if the above is true, you can't sell your used car, until
> you remove the micro and throw it in the garbage can, (you can't smash
> it with a hammer, as that alters the firmware in the rom) and you can't
> sell your house, because the heating/airconditioning system is micro
> processor controlled and contains a rom.......... :-)

   The > >> material was quoted from an analysis that "assume[s] that
the software manufacturer will impose the most restrictive provisions
that are permitted" [by the Illinois Software License Enforcement Act.]
  The > response therefore *could* actually be true under this law.
(Of course automobile manufacturers would not do this because they 
would dislike having any control over your ability to sell your used
car. :-)
--henry schaffer
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281960 is a reply to message #281785] Fri, 20 December 1985 15:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
john is currently offline  john
Messages: 294
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Article-I.D.: frog.301
Posted: Fri Dec 20 15:01:04 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 03:09:47 EST
References: <856@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA
Lines: 129

> Certainly I agree that software should be subject to the certain implicit
> warranties as other products.  But I think this is a separate issue.
>    Note that the Illinois law (which you may not have read) allows you to
> return the software within a period of time rather than accept the license
> agreement.
>   -- David
> 

"(4) The legend or notice states clearly that a person who receives the copy
of computer software and does not accept and agree to the terms of the
accompanying license may, within a reasonable time, return the unused,
unopened copy of computer software to the party from whom it was acquired,
or to some other identified party, for a full refund of any money paid for
the copy; and"

It is still absolutely legal to sell a blank diskette if the license agreement
says that you have no recourse, and you cannot find out that you own a blank
diskette till you (1) open and attempt to (2) use the software.

However, at least they give you this:

"(5) The terms of the accompanying license agreement must be clearly and
conspicuously stated in the license agreement in language which is readily
understandable, and the license agreement must be attached to or packaged with
the computer software or copy thereof in such a manner that the terms are
				      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
readily noticeable before the act which is deemed to constitute acceptance
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
occurs;"
^^^^^^

i.e., no more "By opening this package you have accepted all the terms of
our incomprehensible license agreement, copies of which only exist in a
16-ton steel safe at the bottom of the Marianas Trench."

``"License agreement" means a written document on which the word "license",
either alone or in combination with other words, appears conspicuously at
or near the top so as to be readily noticeable to a person viewing the
document.''

Which "words"?  How about:  "THIS IS NOT A LICENSE AGREEMENT"

And finally, a reposting of a message from earlier in the year:

> is the original
} is the original reposter

}From: phco@ecsvax.UUCP (John Miller)
}Newsgroups: net.micro
}Subject: Re: The next generation of software licences
}Message-ID: <303@ecsvax.UUCP>
}Date: 23 Aug 85 01:52:32 GMT
}References: <1222@ubc-cs.UUCP>
}Reply-To: phco@ecsvax.UUCP (John Miller)
}Organization: Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

}In article <1222@ubc-cs.UUCP> manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vince Manis) writes:
>
>                        *HEY, SCUZZBAG*
>              *IF YOU OPEN THIS PACKAGE, YOU AGREE*
>             *TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS.*
>
>1.Flubber Systems Inc. (THE VENDOR) provides this program for use on a 
>  single machine, insofar as it may be used on any machine at all.
>
>2.THE VENDOR does not warrant that this program will perform the function
>  or functions it is advertised to perform, that it will perform any function
>  at all, that the documentation is correct, or that there is even a 
>  diskette and/or documentation (PROGRAM MATERIALS) in the box. The 
>  purchaser assumes all responsibility  for determining whether he or she
>  got rooked or not.
>
>3.THIS PRODUCT IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING
>  BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
>  FOR A GIVEN PURPOSE. SHOULD THE PRODUCT PROVE DEFECTIVE, IT IS UP TO THE 
>  PURCHASER TO DETERMINE THAT THE PROGRAM IS DEFECTIVE AND PROVIDE TO THE
>  VENDOR THE SOURCE CODE CHANGES NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE PROGRAM 
>  FUNCTIONS CORRECTLY.
>
>4.In respect of condition 3, THE VENDOR will not furnish any source code 
>  to the purchaser even should the purchaser be willing to repair PROGRAM
>  MATERIALS at his/her own cost.
>
>5.THE VENDOR agrees to provide technical support at a scale of fees to be
>  determined once THE VENDOR has written the software. Such technical support
>  shall consist of telephone support conducted from an unlisted number in
>  Malawi. THE VENDOR does not warrant that such support will be responsive,
>  or that any advice furnished to the purchaser shall be correct, complete,
>  or even vaguely useful. 
>
>6.This agreement shall remain in force until THE VENDOR gets tired of it. 
>  At the termination of the agreement, the purchaser agrees to destroy 
>  all PROGRAM MATERIALS, and to give to THE VENDOR the results of all use
>  of said PROGRAM MATERIALS. THE VENDOR may choose to give or sell such
>  results to any person, but assumes no liability for the correctness or
>  usefulness of such results; all liability remains with the original 
>  purchaser.
>
>7.The following actions, or similar, shall result in immediate termination
>  of this agreement, as provided under condition 6: unauthorised duplication
>  of the software (even for backup purposes); possession of any program 
>  whose purpose is to defeat copy protection mechanisms; advocacy of 
>  so-called ''consumer protection'' legislation, which restricts the 
>  freedoms of software vendors; any public or private utterance which 
>  disparages THE VENDOR, the PROGRAM MATERIALS, any other product marketed
>  by or endorsed by THE VENDOR, or the software industry in general. 
>
>8.This agreement shall be governed by the laws of The Republic of Albania,
>  and by the philosophy of its now-departed leader, Enver Hoxha.
>
>BY READING THIS FAR, YOU HAVE ALREADY CONSENTED TO THIS AGREEMENT. IT'S TOO
>LATE NOW, SUCKER!

}I must have missed something.  How does this differ from the license
}agreements currently prevailing?  (;-)
}
}                        John Miller  (ecsvax!phco)
}                        Dept. of Pharmacology, Univ. of N.C.-Chapel Hill
}                        Chapel Hill, NC 27514       (919) 966-4628




--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA

Out of my way, I'm a scientist!
	War of the Worlds
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281964 is a reply to message #281785] Mon, 23 December 1985 10:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jp is currently offline  jp
Messages: 53
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
Member
Article-I.D.: lanl.35259
Posted: Mon Dec 23 10:49:06 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 03:22:47 EST
References: <856@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1892@saber.UUCP>
Reply-To: jp@a.UUCP (James Potter)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 14
Summary: 



Your ability to return/exchange things at Sears is not a right but a matter
of company policy.  Satisfied customers come back and more money is made from
the good will generated than would be made if they insisted on the terms of the
original sale.  Apparently software companies don't see you as a repeat
customer.  The most they are ever going to make off you is what they have in
their pocket just after the sale.  If you have a problem solving it reduces
their profit.  Unless you can convince other people not to buy the product by
word-of-mouth advertising (Bad will??)  So use this forum and any others to
let everyone know whose product works and whose doesn't, who treats you right
and who does'nt.  Only the one's with no sales will get the message.

Jim Potter  jp@lanl.arpa
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281966 is a reply to message #281785] Mon, 23 December 1985 21:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
hes is currently offline  hes
Messages: 67
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Member
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.982
Posted: Mon Dec 23 21:02:05 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 03:23:27 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <9400012@uiucuxa> <1808@uwmacc.UUCP> <1@gumby.UUCP> <2647@sunybcs.UUCP>
Organization: NC State Univ.
Lines: 40

> 
>  > 				  I completely resent the fact that under this
>  >law, I cannot legally modify the programs I have purchased so that they will
>  >RUN on my machine
> 
> I agree.  I feel if I have purchased some software, I should be able to
> do anything I want with it provided that I do not distribute it to other
> people.  I dont know of anything else in the world that you can buy which
> prohibits your modification or destruction of it.  ...
>    Timothy D. Thomas                 SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science

  The software houses argue that they are not selling you a "thing", but
a license.  Note the title, "Software License Enforcement Act."  Among
other effects this removes many responsibilities that the vendor might
have to you if you purchased a "thing".  There are many license or
rental contracts which prohibit modification, etc.  I also have never
heard of restrictions of modifying a "thing you have purchased, but 
such things as apartment leases usually prohibit modifications, including 
putting tacks in the walls, and signing the lease means you agree with the 
terms.

  I checked with an attorney about the possibility of voiding the more
objectionable terms in a license.  I was told that one way to do that was
to show that a term was "unconscionable", but that it would have to be
pretty far out to meet that test.  When I summarized the what I remembered
of Section 4, I was told that these terms didn't sound unconscionable.

  The vendors will probably argue that in order to modify the software,
that you have to get into it, and therefore jeopordize their trade
secrets.  The Illinois law has modification in the same paragraph
with "translation, decompiling, disassembling, or creating derivative
works".

  While I detest prohibiting modification as much as you do, I am
not sure that there is anything novel or unlawful about it.  The answer
is to read the license before purchase, refuse to purchase anything which
has terms you don't like, and follow the conditions of the license of
any purchases you make.  Of course this may mean passing up alot of
otherwise desirable software!
--henry schaffer
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281967 is a reply to message #281785] Tue, 24 December 1985 05:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.11290
Posted: Tue Dec 24 05:59:08 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 03:41:40 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa> <9400011@uiucuxa> <1950@gondor.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 22

In article <1950@gondor.UUCP> schuler@gondor.UUCP (David W. Schuler) writes:
>With these facts in mind, I think that the first thing
>the Ill. legislature should do is lock up ALL of the
>people in the government who use computers.  Everyone
>has violated at least one of these sections of the
>proposed bill at any one time.  
>
   The point is that the law permits the application of licenses prohibiting
various activities, not that it actually forbids all activities described in
the law (this would be both absurd and unconstitutional).

   The whole assumption that "software companies will incorporate every
possible restriction into their licenses" is simply unfounded.  Clearly
restrictive licenses reduce the value of the product, and thus the sales
(except if they are ignored, in which case it is irrelevant what they say).

   Also, in response to another article, the law does clearly state that the
purchaser must be able to examine the terms of the license agreement before
committing the act that indicates acceptance of the contract; i.e. one can
always read the license and decide to return the product for refund.

   -- David desJardins
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281979 is a reply to message #281785] Wed, 25 December 1985 11:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: ugjohna@sunybcs.UUCP (John Arrasjid)
Article-I.D.: sunybcs.2660
Posted: Wed Dec 25 11:56:42 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Dec-85 01:02:59 EST
References: <826@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: ugjohna@gort.UUCP (John Arrasjid)
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
Lines: 19
Keywords: Lemon Law
Summary: A lemon law for computers and software...





It seems that all the laws that I have seen only protect the Software Company.
New York and various other states have what is called a Lemon Law for motor
vehicles that protects the buyer from defective merchandise (granted, this is
for used vehicles). If you buy a piece of software and it crashes or doesn't
even work the first time then what can you do? Most (not all) companies will
charge you for a replacement and some will even require you to purchase the
product again. As there are more software users out there than companies, then
it would appear to me that an organized lobbying effort on the part of the
users should have a greater effect on legislators than the software companies.
After all, we do vote for them!

John Arrasjid                                    SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
UUCP:    [decvax,dual,rocksanne,watmath,rocksvax]!sunybcs!ugjohna
CSnet:   ugjohna@buffalo
ARPAnet: ugjohna%buffalo@CSNET-RELAY
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #281997 is a reply to message #281785] Thu, 26 December 1985 15:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
tim is currently offline  tim
Messages: 230
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Article-I.D.: ism780c.201
Posted: Thu Dec 26 15:48:55 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Dec-85 13:00:34 EST
References: <826@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica, CA
Lines: 35

In article <826@brl-tgr.ARPA> sienkiew@louie.udel.edu writes:
>
>If you don't buy software that has license agreements like that, you probably
>won't be buying much at all.  Imagine what it would be like if you bought a
>new car and the manufacturer didn't even have to guarentee that it could move
>under it's own power!
>
Why would you buy such a car?  Don't all the proposed lawa require the
agreement to be clearly visable and labeled?  If you see a product with
an agreement you are not willing to follow, then don't buy it!

>Now suppose that this was a shrink-wrap license under the Illinois law.  And
>suppose you bought the software by mail-order.  You cannot determine if it
>works without accepting the license agreement.

Even without a license agreement, a store is not required to take back
purchased items ( I think ).  For example, if I buy a book, read it,
and then decide that it was a lousy book, it didn't live up to my
expectations, and I will never, ever, want to re-read it, I can't take
it back to the bookstore and get my money back!  Isn't it now the same
with software?  Sure, many dealers let you return something if you are
not satisfied, but I think that they are doing this to try to get you
to buy from them, not because any law says they must.

At least under the Illinois law, they are required to take back a product
if you see that the shrink-wrap license is not suitable.  So you are
gaining, not losing.

What I really don't understand is why people object to being required to
honor voluntary agreements.  You are not forced to buy a product with
a license agreement you do not like.  You are allowed to return it if
you buy it by mistake.  What's the beef?

-- 
Tim Smith       sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #282000 is a reply to message #281785] Sun, 22 December 1985 12:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
john is currently offline  john
Messages: 294
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Article-I.D.: hpcvla.6200001
Posted: Sun Dec 22 12:41:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Dec-85 13:23:02 EST
References: <-94000@uiucuxa.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard - Corvallis, OR
Lines: 26
Nf-ID: #R:uiucuxa:9400009:hpcvla:6200001:000:957
Nf-From: hpcvla!john    Dec 22 09:41:00 1985

<<<<
< Now suppose that this was a shrink-wrap license under the Illinois law.  And
< suppose you bought the software by mail-order.  You cannot determine if it
< works without accepting the license agreement.
<

If you don't know what you are buying then you shouldn't be using mail order 
houses. A dealer will let you try out the software and answer your questions
before the sale so you will know what your getting. You can even ask (before
handing him your check) "If this doesn't work on my machine will you refund
my money?"

Dealers charge more but they offer more services. If you can't afford it then
find a local users group to help BEFORE putting down your money.


< A point to ponder:  Why doesn't the law require that the software must live
< up to all the claims made by it's publisher???


For the same reason that you can't sue an after shave manufactor because their
product didn't help your love life.


John Eaton
!hplabs!hp-pcd!john
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #282018 is a reply to message #281785] Mon, 30 December 1985 23:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: lrj@lasspvax.UUCP (Lewis R. Jansen)
Article-I.D.: lasspvax.762
Posted: Mon Dec 30 23:31:15 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jan-86 00:41:23 EST
References: <826@brl-tgr.ARPA> <2660@sunybcs.UUCP> <989@ecsvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: lrj@lasspvax.UUCP (Lewis R. Jansen)
Distribution: net
Organization: LASSP, Cornell University
Lines: 23
Summary: 


>Better still, go out of your way to take your trade to software
>companies that show some concern for their customers; letters to
>companies which you are avoiding might also be a good idea.  ...

  Lest we forget, make sure you also write letters to the companies whose
policies you like, whether they don't use copy-protection, have good
sevice depts or whatever.  If they get letters of praise from satisfied
customers, they will be more likely to continue such policies.  Postive
reinforcement is also a good training tool...  And that's what the free-
market system is all about;  the buying public 'training' the vendor to
do what they want... ;^)

>Bennett Todd -- Duke Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706-7756; (919) 684-3695

-----
-- Lewis R. Jansen   UUCP:  {decvax,ihnp4,allegra,vax135}!cornell!lasspvax!lrj
     ___.-.___     Bitnet:  uxhj@CornellA.BITNET
   ['  `(o)'  `]     Arpa:  lrj@lasspvax.tn.cornell.edu.ARPA

 Fire for'd phasers!

	      (My opinions are mine alone, but are for sale...)
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #282021 is a reply to message #281785] Mon, 30 December 1985 12:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
oyster is currently offline  oyster
Messages: 11
Registered: January 1986
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1865
Posted: Mon Dec 30 12:58:29 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jan-86 00:59:40 EST
Reply-To: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster)
Distribution: net
Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center
Lines: 58

<>
In the current software licensing discussion (most of which has been highly
entertaining, if not informative), there have been several recurring points
which I haven't seen dealt with to my satisfaction.

From Henry Schaeffer (sorry if I misspelled your name; my fingers work
faster than my brain):
>...such things as apartment leases usually prohibit modifications, including 
>putting tacks in the walls, and signing the lease means you agree with the 
>terms.

   True, but a lease can be read beforehand, and there is the important
legal aspect of the possibility of negotiation, which seems to be absent
in the Illinois law.  Another thing about a lease is that you can see the
apartment beforehand.  Does the law in question (or any existing law)
provide for "seeing" (using) the software before "signing the agreement"
(opening the package)?

From Tim Smith:
>Why would you buy such a car?  Don't all the proposed lawa require the
>agreement to be clearly visable and labeled?  If you see a product with
>an agreement you are not willing to follow, then don't buy it!
...
>What I really don't understand is why people object to being required to
>honor voluntary agreements.  You are not forced to buy a product with
>a license agreement you do not like.  You are allowed to return it if
>you buy it by mistake.  What's the beef?

  As for buying the car, see the above regarding apartment rents.  The car
in question can be examined before buying it.  Not so for software.  The other
question doesn't seem relevant to me.  The law will make legal the currently
questionable shrink-wrap agreements.  It will make acceptance of an utterly
non-negotiable license mandatory upon opening a package which can contain
absolutely nothing.  So I either accept it, or buy nothing.
  Returning to the car analogy, the kind of "lemon law" referenced was 
passed to protect the unsuspecting and unknowledgable average consumer from
being taken by dishonest used car salespeople.  A knowledgable auto mechanic
should have no need of that law.  Most people using this forum are fairly
knowledgable about computers and software, and hence are in the same
position regarding software as the mechanic is regarding cars.  Can you
accept that even though *we* may be too smart to be duped, most people
aren't?

Which brings me to the following, from Bennett E. Todd III:
>It has been said before in this forum, but allow me to repeat: as long
>as the laws aren't forcing you to buy the software, then don't worry so
>much about the laws themselves; instead, boycott those companies that
>use abusive licensing agreements, or copy protection...

   And if a law is passed which seems to encourage use of "abusive
licensing agreements, or copy protection [a separate issue, to my mind]",
what do we do with our computers?  I certainly don't have the time,
inclination, or resources to write a C compiler, spreadsheet, word processor,
or text adventure every time I want one.  When all software use is
uniformly restricted, what can we do?  It makes a helluva lot more sense
to try to stop such laws, rather than live with 'em once they're here.

 - Joel ({allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster)
Re: Your software rights are in danger [message #282052 is a reply to message #281785] Thu, 02 January 1986 12:43 Go to previous message
dgary is currently offline  dgary
Messages: 105
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.1007
Posted: Thu Jan  2 12:43:16 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jan-86 04:45:40 EST
References: <856@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1892@saber.UUCP> <35259@lanl.ARPA>
Reply-To: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady)
Organization: Duke U Comp Ctr
Lines: 31

In article <35259@lanl.ARPA> jp@a.UUCP (James Potter) writes:
>Your ability to return/exchange things at Sears is not a right but a matter
>of company policy.

Not strictly true (in the United States, anyway), thanks to the federal
Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act (which specifies what "full" and "limited"
warranties are, how they can be worded, and so on) and the Uniform
Commercial Code (the basis for the system of trade law in most states,
embodying concepts like "implied warranty of merchantability and
fitness for a particular purpose").

To sell something with NO warranty, a retail store must expressly declare
that it is selling the product "as is" - otherwise, most of the time,
you have a legal right to return the merchandise for a refund no matter
what the store's policy might be.

By the way, one of the reasons software publishers want to characterize
software sales as licensing and NOT "sales" is that in so doing they can
escape from the Uniform Commercial Code.  The other main reason is that
some legal authorities feel they can also avoid the fair use provision
of the Copyright Act that says you can make backup copies of software
you own.  If you haven't "bought" it you don't "own" it, you see...

Usual disclaimer:  I'm not a lawyer.  If you need specific legal advice,
see one.  One way of determining if someone is a lawyer is to see if he
or she will tell you stuff like the above for free.
-- 
D Gary Grady
Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC  27706
(919) 684-3695
USENET:  {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: FORTH, PASCAL, and C--- which one would you choose (it depends ?)
Next Topic: Re: What if IBM used a 68000
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Sat May 21 01:30:28 EDT 2022

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02365 seconds