Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (19731)	5/27/1998 12:54:00 AM
From: M31	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Daniel Schuh -- Re: <<...Microsoft must be free to imitate, er, integrate, I mean, innovate...>> No, microsoft must be free to assimilate! M31

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (19731)	5/27/1998 9:16:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Software industry wields fine-print attack mercurycenter.com In case anybody was wondering where Bill's lobbying dollars were going. . . Even though computers and software have moved into the mainstream, software companies still insist they have the right to sell defective products with impunity. Whether these contracts are legally enforceable, however, has been a matter of debate. Indeed, several courts have sensibly ruled that some egregious provisions are invalid. Now, industry wants to settle the matter once and for all -- and in its own favor. . . . The need for uniform laws concerning software is clear enough. But Article 2B, which has been under consideration for several years, is a disaster. It would make the already one-sided software licenses even more so, and would set back consumers' rights in unprecedented ways. Among 2B's worst potential effects: It codifies the slippery notion that you are licensing, not buying, the software. When you purchase goods, you enjoy many more consumer protections than when you license something. It allows software companies to specifically tell consumers that the product comes as-is, with all risks borne by the user. It would effectively indemnify the software company from any damages its defective product caused users -- even if the company knew of the defect and didn't bother to tell users. It would create vast liability for consumers in Internet transactions. If someone using your name and credit-card information fraudulently ordered software online, you'd be responsible for proving that you hadn't made the order yourself. It allows software publishers to manipulate media coverage by prohibiting unauthorized reviews of the product, or any reverse-engineering. Example: Network Associates, a Silicon Valley company that sells security software, insists it has the right to prohibit disclosure of any test results of its product without prior written approval. By all appearances, the software industry has controlled the drafting of UCC 2B. Several pro-consumer activists have been almost completely frustrated in their efforts tore-balance this grossly unfair process. And we all know who the leader of the software industry is. But what the heck, if you're not satisfied with the integrity and uniformity of your software experience, you can always buy a version that sucks less 3 years later. Cheers, Dan.