Re: No rights, was Re: Syndicomm Scam

[nyder <nyder.23@gmail.com>]

On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 6:16:54 PM UTC-7, Bill Buckels wrote:
> "D Finnigan" <dog_cow@macgui.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > Eric Shepherd wrote:
> 
> > I have a legitimate license to distribute the APDA products, inherited 
> 
> > from The Byte Works.  I fulfilled my obligation to fax Apple a document 
> 
> > indicating that the license had been transferred.
> 
> 
> 
> So far so good. Sheppy has a licence from Apple to distribute APDA products 
> 
> which presumably includes the operating systems and the other APDA stuff 
> 
> that developers require. I was an APDA developer, long ago. Do I qualify as 
> 
> a purchaser? I wasn't aware that I needed to. So are these legal copies that 
> 
> I purchased from Syndicomm?
> 
> 
> 
> Setting aside the fact that there are presumably conditions on that licence, 
> 
> the licence itself has descended until this point through voluntary 
> 
> transfers:
> 
> 
> 
> This seems to be an established defacto (or dejure) practice which includes:
> 
>   1.. the right to use the good
> 
>   2.. the right to earn income from the good
> 
>   3.. the right to transfer the good to others
> 
>   4.. the right to enforcement of property rights.
> 
> Setting that aside for the moment, Mr. Diaz may not have needed to fax Apple 
> 
> a document indicating that Syndicomm's ownership dejure had been 
> 
> transferred, since the ownership of the licence (either defacto or dejure) 
> 
> resides with Syndicomm.
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming that in fact the transfer of ownership of Syndicomm did not require 
> 
> due diligence on behalf of the Licencor to ensure that Syndicomm under Mr. 
> 
> Diaz is acceptable, the following sounds like Eric is sharing his fear,  but 
> 
> did not actually check with his lawyer, and may not have had anything to 
> 
> fear as long the rest of us were happy (but you folks don't sound happy):
> 
> 
> 
> > I don't know how aware Apple is that I do in fact have that license.  I 
> 
> > hesitate to call them up and talk to them about it, because if they're 
> 
> > reminded of the existence of the license, they might opt to cancel it,
> 
> 
> 
> I would have kept quiet as well. Copyright enforcement is at the discretion 
> 
> of the Copyright Holder.
> 
> 
> 
> > in which case we're all kind of screwed. :)
> 
> 
> 
> I fail to see how unless black helicopters with Apple Logos descend on us 
> 
> all. I do however think that any of us at any time could make a case that as 
> 
> a collective we have the right to control the use of any good distributed by 
> 
> Syndicomm, and we in fact as a collective hold the same defacto rights that 
> 
> Syndicomm holds. The licence sounds like a privilege and not a right at all. 
> 
> Or perhaps it is not an exclusive right. Perhaps we all have the same 
> 
> "legitimate" licence.
> 
> 
> 
> So I don't disagree with you David.  The abandonware argument that someone 
> 
> else made holds water. If Apple has done nothing and this has gone-on for 
> 
> years, it would be very difficult to enforce. I doubt if Mr. Diaz could 
> 
> enforce this. It's not Primagenitor! There are no kings when it comes to 
> 
> licence agreements or lack thereof.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill

It's sad that the price of the software and manuals being sold are so expensive.   Sort of insulting, really.   No one cares about the Apple II's 'cept for hobbyist & collectors, and here syndicomm is gouging prices, and worse, doing a bad job at supplying orders.

$20 for SCSI Utilites, seriously?  
$40 for a terminal program.
$25 for a compression program

Don't even get me started on the development tools.

Syndicomm sucks, big time.   You can keep defending it, but dude, it blows, and everyone knows it.

The only thing worse then companies not putting software into the public domain is companies that charge high prices on software for computers way past their day.   But whatever, if you want to be dicks, then you are going to be dicks.