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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Phil Melemed who wrote (10685)	9/10/1998 7:56:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Respond to of 74651

Then the root problem seems to be that no one has written an installer that is simpler than a VCR and that requires minimal reading. That would be interesting. The insta-update functions in the latest versions of Microsoft Office, or AOL's insta-updates, or Netscape's smart-update come to mind. Wouldn't that be simpler than federally mandating software bundling and integration? Hee hee. The DOJ's recommendation of bundling Navigator with Windows was a compensatory action to undue the alleged damage wrought by Microsoft to Netscape through Microsoft's alleged illegal tying of IE 4.0 to Windows 95 and 98. That is, since you are alleged to have kept millions of people from Netscape Navigator you must help put Netscape Navigator into their hands.

To: Phil Melemed who wrote (10685)	9/10/1998 9:01:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 74651

Aside: I wonder if the courts have ever challenged the validity of software license agreements, since apparently no one has ever read them, either on paper or on-screen. Phil, I take it you haven't been following the progress of UCC article 2B. Nice piece of work, has the fingerprints of "politically naive software engineer" Bill all over it. A somewhat old link, with relevant but far too long quote: Software industry wields fine-print attack mercurycenter.com YOU'VE undoubtedly seen, but probably haven't read or understood, the long contracts that accompany software. The legal gobbledygook typically begins: ''This is a legal agreement between Buggy Software Inc. ('Buggy') and you the Licensee ('you' or 'Licensee'). Using the Product indicates your understanding and acceptance of the following terms.'' These take-it-or-leave-it contracts are among the most laughably anti-consumer documents ever dreamed up. They date from the early days of the personal-computer industry, when users were hobbyists who understood that products were buggy and risky to use. 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 to re-balance this grossly unfair process. OK, it says "the software industry", not Microsoft. But, last I heard, #2 in PC software anyway was Lotus, at $600 million or something. And what would Lotus be without IBM? It's not exactly clear that there's much more than a cottage industry of consultants beyond Microsoft. I'd guess Bill's "world class lobbying organization" has other fish to fry besides the dogs of antitrust. In antitrust, of course, the Chicago School "consumer" theory is the correct interpretation, I've heard. Cheers, Dan.