Re: vogons vs turlettes

["Quantum_Cat" <anonymous@cotse.com>]

Hiya, John.

 *>QC,
 *>    I'm going to try my hardest to be civil because I have 
a genuine,
 *>non-sarcastic question to ask you. Granted, it is probably 
80% hypothetical,
 *>but I dare you to declare it irrelevant.

OK.  I'll try the same.  I'll declare it irrelevant if I find 
that it is.  ;)

 *>    Suppose some softco comes up with an awesome, 
innovative application.
 *>Something totally cool, and it's not your average coding 
practices that
 *>produced this. 

OK.

 *Some new algorithm that makes the whole thing. 

Oops.. Here's where it starts becoming irrelevant.  
Algorithms fall under Patent law.  For example, the method 
used to compress GIF's, also used by Shrinkit.  UniSys(?) 
hold the patent and protects it.  

This is NOT a copyright consideration then.

 *>Now, some years later, they abandon it, no longer selling 
it, but retaining
 *>the copyright. "Piracy" is of course illegal, so the 
options as you have
 *> pointed out, are

 *>A) Try to find it on the used market (am I wrong, or did I 
see you hint that
 *>not even you consider this a realistic fair option?)

You are wrong.  This is one of the options I've pressed a 
number of times.  Usually with something like "If you MUST 
have it, post a WTB on csa2m, or any number of forums".

I hardly think that an "awesome, innovative application. 
Something totally cool" product would be difficult to find in 
any case.  Still, go on with your story.

 *>B) Write your own software (as you have so sarcastically 
pointed out before)

Hmm... I don't recall making this point, but agree that it's 
an option.

 *>    Well, I have somewhat agreed with you on point B, many 
times it's also
 *>the most desirable. Sure, a few lame idiots don't have 
that option
 *>available, but I feel no sympathy for them either. There's 
just one
 *>problem...

Well, that's the time to hire programmers then, isn't it.  ;)

 *>    You can't, by law.

Hmmm?

 *>    Copyright infringement, or perhaps patent 
infringement, is what this is
 *>called. By US law (can't speak for other countries) an 
algorithm itself it
 *>intellectual property. The binary, well even I can't 
defend 'pirating' the
 *>binary, but when the algorithm itself is unavailable, what 
then? Option B is
 *>no longer available. Option A was never really an option.

Yes, I'll assume the company would vigorously protect it's 
Patent.

For the sake of argument, I'll agree with your Option A, 
although I don't think it's realistic given the situation 
you've set up.

As for Option B, I'll have to disagree.  When UniSys clamped 
down on GIF's, another option sprang forth.  JPEGs.  Now 
there are more compression algorithms than you can shake a 
stick at.

Real life goes around barriers like you've constructed, John.

There's always another way of doing something.

 *>    Well, I guess that sucks. You could write the util/app 
just for
 *>yourself, 'pirating' the algorithm, but even if NO ONE 
EVER FINDS OUT or the
 *>COPYRIGHT HOLDER IS UNAWARE, it's still wrong and 
certainly illegal. Well,
 *>not to be discouraged, because an honest law-abiding 
citizen always has
 *>options that are within the law, you click on the ebay 
bookmark. Bingo.
 *>Within 2 days, you've found just what you are looking for. 
And oh my god,
 *>through some miracle it happens to be a reasonable price 
by anyone's
 *>standards. The seller has good feedback, he has the 
package to you in 3 days
 *>time. It has all the origial documentation, still in its 
shrinkwrap. Hot
 *>damn. You open it up like a little kid on christmas 
morning, and the piece
 *>of paper right on top is the EULA. You start reading it, 
and in between the
 *>fine print and that incomprehensible language understood 
by wease.... er,
 *>lawyers, the message is clear. You don't have a legal 
right to use this
 *>software. The person selling it to you, and perhaps you 
yourself, have just
 *>committed a crime. It seems the license is non-
transferable. Valid only for
 *>the original registered purchaser. Sure the media may 
technically belong to
 *>you, and you can even use the floppies, providing you 
format them first.

OK.  I'm no lawyer, but I'm under the impression that 
Shrinkwrap agreements are unenforcible and have no protection 
under the law.  That means they're worthless.  Please correct 
me if I'm wrong.  I'll admit to getting this by hearsay.

 *>    How possible is this scenario? Oh, by any means 
uncommon, one might even
 *>say rare. 

As constructed, I'd say nearly impossible.  Any company with 
such a wonderful product would hardly shoot itself in the 
foot.  They call them upgrades.

But perhaps our opinions differ here.

 *>Does it happen? All but the part about a reaonable human 
being
 *>giving a flying fuck what the EULA says. 

Agreed.  The shrinkwrap agreement is waste paper.

 *>Is this trend dissappearing, or
 *>increasing? Certainly increasing, exponentially. Am I 
bullshitting, or can I
 *>actually cite an example that a normal person would 
recognize? I am not
 *>bullshitting. QC, if you are as computer literate as you 
probably like to
 *>claim, know that I could list no less than 3 full pages 
worth of current
 *>software, and certainly not less than half a page of 
Apple// vintage
 *>software.

That fit your hypothetical situation that you've just 
postulated?  Where a patented algorithm is the cause of your 
postulated barrier to our theoretical user?

I'm going to call you on this, John.  Post your evidence.

Please try to list only those things that fit your situation.  
I don't have time to wade through a list full of fluff.

 *>    My question for you is this, QC. How can you possibly 
say that this is
 *>in any way reasonable, without resorting to juvenile word 
games, or ignoring
 *>the heart of the matter?

As I mentioned earlier.  As you presented the situation, it 
becomes a Patent law problem.  Well outside of the 
protections offered copyright holders.

As I understand it, patents have a considerably shorter 
lifespan than copyright.

As for the reasonability of your construction, I'd have to it 
wasn't well constructed.  Unbelievable would be another term.

Will you be addressing the points I made or will you be 
ignoring them?

 *>For the rest of you, I have a few predictions.
 *>#1 QC resorts to name calling.

John, John, John... Well, I'll be!  You're right!  ;)

 *>#2 He manages to find the one typo I somehow missed, and 
use it as an excuse
 *>to ignore this post. 

All in all, not a bad post.  That was one long and nasty 
paragraph (hard to read), but I didn't ignore your post.  

 *>#3 He claims that the scenario is incredibly rare, is
 *>an exaggeration, or is contrived to artificially refute 
his otherwise
 *>'perfect' philosophy. 
 
I'll claim the situation falls under Patent Law.  ;)

Of course, I'll also claim that it IS contrived.  Until you 
post those real world examples you claim fit this situation.

 *>#4 He'll claim that even though it might be entirely
 *>unreasonable, it's still illegal and therefore morally, 
and ethically wrong.

Yes, it's illegal to break the copyright laws.  And since our 
laws define what is moral and ethical, that would make it 
wrong.

 *>#5 He'll use the 'word' turlette. 

I will NOT use the word "turlette"... Damn!  You got another 
one right!  :D

 *>#6 He'll co-opt the comp.sys.apple2 forum
 *>for his own, even though those on the opposite side of the 
debate disown
 *>him. 

Uh.. I am unconcerned about the feelings of the opposite 
side... Or are you stating your position as someone who feels 
you're better qualified as to what happens to other people's 
property?

 *>#7 He'll continue to post, but never on any meaningful 
topic, never to
 *>help someone, never to reveal a secret bit of technical 
wisdom that is
 *>otherwise undocumented. 

Gee.. How soon they forget.  I helped the Dorktor with a 
small typing error in one of his URL's.

But then, If everyone here had to jump the same hurdle you've 
put before me, John, csa2 would be stone cold dead.  ;)

 *>#8 But most of all, most importantly, he'll never
 *>actually answer my main question. He'll tear it to pieces, 
and argue each
 *>minor point out of context, he'll demand proof for things 
that are
 *>completely obvious, but lacking any official statistical 
data, he'll throw
 *>every fallacy in the book at it. But we'll never hear an 
answer.

Well, I think I've addressed everything adequately.  Quibble 
if you wish.  I certainly hope you don't pull the typical 
"ignore the portions that shoot my construction full of 
holes" dodge.

Anyway, up to these last enumerated prophecies, you were very 
civil.  :)

Vogons For a Turlette (Dang!  Another one!) Free Apple II 
Community!

Quantum_Cat