Renegade Software
27 messages in this thread
I say me data is mine and mine alone. Software companies are there
to serve me the customer not to tell me what I can and can not do
with my data. It would be like Kodak saying I could not transfer my
super 8mm movies to VHS because super 8 is their format. I will
never buy a product from Lotus because they say that my macros are
their property.
You say "your data is yours, and yours alone".
Ok, I don't dispute that at all.
If we (our company) provide you with a storage format that (for
instance) provides you with the ability to save significant amounts
of data storage space (thus providing you with the ability to store
more, or other, data), and also ensure that you have a means to
recover your data into more conventional formats, have we nto ensured
that (a) you have your data and (b) you've benefited from our
product?
Does your feeling that your data is "yours and yours alone" give you,
or others the right to take work that we did (the design,
implementation, marketing and manufacturing of the method) and give
it away? If so, why?
The means to recover my data into more conventional formats does
help but does not go far enough. Why sould you prevent me from using
other software to read my data. I think you should be able to limit
other software from createing data using your storage format. Lets
take take two examples.
Photo CD-ROM from Kodak: I take the pictures and take them to
Kodak and get a Photo CD-ROM now I want to read them on my Amiga.
Kodak as kissed the Amiga market goodbye so a none kodak program does
not take any money away from them it will in fact make money for
them. I think this comes under fair usage.
Lotus 1-2-3: I develop a wonderful macro but I can not transfer it
to Quattro.
I think all data format should be in the public Domain for read
only it is not just graphics and spreadsheets that are the problem
but Accounting and PIM's and much more. I don't like companies that
try to keep you using there products by holding you hostage.
Hmmm. The argument goes, the reason a company "should" be able to
prevent others fromusing technology they developed is because they
paid for the development of the format, in one form or another in
order to secure a specific advantage for the company. We're not
talking about the 10$ or 20$ you might have provided them (indirectly
by purchasing the product) but many, many thousands – or more – of
dollars worth of research.
When the technology is then freely available to another company as
you suggest, they get the benefit of that research for nothing, that
is, some customers are likely to provide them with a 10$ or so income
based on that additional functionality which the *original* company
developed and paid for; yet that original company does not benefit
except in an extremely peripheral way (name recogfnition if they're
lucky, though usully not, and some amount of additional sales as the
technology reaches more users and they realize the original company
"also" supports the format in question).
What I think many people have yet to realize here is that most
research done by commercial enterprises is done with the goal of
eventually benefiting the company in a substantial manner;
substantial enough to repay the investment of the research itself and
also, hopefully, make some amount of profit. When the playing field
is such that entity A pays the price and does the research, and then
has to split the benefits with company B, C, D… etc, the odds of
repayment of the research go down significantly, unless the product
is major, major successful.
It goes without saying (well, it should, anyway) that most products
are not aall that successful, regardless of the intrinsic worth of
the product – markets are fickle as all get out and will often ignore
the "better" alternative despite the damage it does them. In fact,
some companies depend on the basic myopia of the consumer in this
fashion… otherwise, they wouldn't be able to compete.
Unless the prospect of companies not embarking on a project unless
they are _certain_ of a major market hit to the extent that they
would be certain to receive repayment as they would with exclusive
rights to "the development" is encouraging to you, you might well
think some more about these issues.
I don't think you can draw a line and say "this side, data… this
side not data" and derive an arbitrary conclusion about whether you
should, or should not, have all the "rights" to every possible
manipulation, storage format or other verb with regard to that data.
It's not a reasonable conclusion and smacks of non enlightened self
interest, to me.
Not easy questions, are they?
It's easy to imagine scenarios that test the limits. Suppose, for
example, that I have a program that stores images (that I, as a
program licensee, create) in a particular format. Suppose further
that it is the only format the program will let me store the images
in, and that the storage format is proprietary. Does this mean that
the company who owns the technology can now legally prevent me from
using MY image in some other program, or that they can prevent me
from even recovering it by means other than their program?
I agree completely. I described the scenario as one where the image
(your data) is exportable; that's the case with Imagemaster R/t, for
instance, which does offer just such a proprietary format. Darwin
knows, there are people, and companies, that can ruin anything. :^\
I believe…to the best of my knowledge…that this issue has
been settled by the courts (but, of course, I don't remember the
case).
The algorithm for creating and using a file format may be
copyrighted and restricted, but the format itself can not be. The
data, in any case, belongs to the creator of the data…not to the
creator of the format or algorithm used to store/extract the data.
In other words, a company can spends lots of money coming up
with a storage format, but all they can protect is *their* method of
moving data into and out of that format, they can not prevent others
from coming up with a different method of moving data into and out of
the format.
That is my memory of the situation…and my memory has been
known to be faulty in the past…but I do believe I am correct on
this one…but wouldn't bet the farm on it <grin>.
They can also protect the name…thus Kodak could prevent
others from using the 'PhotoCD' name unless they licensed it from
Kodak. But that comes under the trademark laws, not the copyright
laws.
Thanks, Don.
One long term solution is for users to avoid programs that to not
support saving their data in at least one non-proprietary format.
For example, its ok for a wordprocessor or DTP package to use a
proprietary format for it's data storage as long as I can save or
print to a plain ASCII file. That way my data is not held hostage
and software company does not have to steal another's propietary
format to give the user data freedom.
I made that point initially; if the data is exportable without damage
in a common format, then there is no "hostage" concept applicable.
central to this argument is that the data in question is provided
by the user, not the author of the data format. If the data format
is exclusively the province of the company that wrote the program
into which I have entered my data, how does this differ from
confiscation of my data?
I entered it, it is mine, not that of the author of the format.
Hmm…, I wonder what kind of situation we would be in if the
"inventor" of the alphabet had applied this principle. Do you see
the distinction?
Lastly, while I applaud your efforts to ensure that the data format
is the most efficient for the task, this is not a reasonable
assumption with respect to many data formats that I've run across.
Many seem to have taken on a life of their own, with backward
compatability being the central criteria rather than that of greatest
efficiency. Indeed, some are so contorted that it would be
laughable, if it weren't so awful.
You've touched upon the cardinal point with your "alphabet" example:
since you cannot copyright languages, there must be some other form
of protection. And there is: the patent.
Patents have been granted for a number of file formats, computer
programming languages, and transmission protocols. All of these are
used to describe various ideas, all of which can be copyrighted
themselves. As long as the language is not patented, you are free to
use it however you may. Patents protect processes and methods, and a
language is just a method of expressing an idea.
Since the life span of a lot of software is just a few years (at
most!), most companies will not patent file formats because of the
time and money involved. They normally will keep them internal
unless it's politic to make them public (ie IFF and WK1 to name a
few), but an enterprising programmer can legally decode and use any
non-patented file format. That's why so many software companies have
employee non-disclosure contracts…
My understanding of the Kodak Photo-CD format is that it is not
patented nor do they have an application in at the Patent Office.
Makes the format fair game in the eyes of the law. If they do patent
the format it'll be time to get out the license-fee checkbook.
It differs from confiscation of your data in that you, voluntarily,
put the data into that format using tools inthe program. That's
worlds away from confiscation. No one made you do it.
So, it would be bad in your eyes if I had an Amiga driver for
PhotoCD.
I tend to go with the other side of the argument but that's not what
I'm asking. (I totally disagree with the idea of patenting data
formats. Its one of those no win scenarios.)
What I want to know is, what's the difference between me decoding and
proccessing a PhotoCD image on my Amiga, and me decoding a PhotCD
image on my PC then transfering it to the Amiga for processing?
Also, don't you think it's a bit illegal for Kodak to withhold
PhotoCD from the Amiga? It seems to me that there are some antitrust
laws involved here.
The difference, perhaps, might be that the people on the PC have paid
for the right to handle the format; you using those utilities would,
presumably, be a means of them recovering their investment in the
format, and so that use is more valid than decoding it on the Amiga.
Perhaps. This is only one way of looking at it. There is also the
other issue I brought up – the more a formta is in use, the more side
benefits could turn around and indirectly payback the originator, or
even the people on the pc whoose legitimate software you're NOT
using. As for antitrust laws… I really don't know much about them,
actually.
I doubt very seriously that my noname clone paid the royalties either…
But, on your "the more formata…" Very true, but the formats are not
whats important, it's the software that uses the various formats, and I'm
going to use the products that can use the most formats (being the
cross-platform jockey that I am.)
I wont go out and buy a CDRom for my PC just so I can have PhotoCD, I
would rather buy one for my Amiga, since that's where I do any creative
work. So, Kodak misses out on all those developing fees that I might have
paid…
As for the Antitrust laws, I don't know enough about them myself, but I
suspect a case could be made.
Bob Comer — Flying high and fast with my A1200HD'030 on Autopilot!
From Cheyenne, Wyoming U.S.A.
Hi Robert
I have just read your note on the Forum about kodak CDRom. I was intersted
to note that you in Cheyenne (went there once!) like me in Wiltshire
England use a A1200HD with Autopilot. Actually I am just getting used to
using AP. It is quite a program – takes a bit to get used to!
Best wishes John, Warminster, England
You'll get used to it! 🙂
Bob Comer — Flying high and fast with my A1200HD'030 on Autopilot!
From Cheyenne, Wyoming U.S.A.
Kodak can withold PhotoCD from anyone they like; they aren't obliged
to sell their technology to anybody. Antitrust law is not my
specialty, but this is pretty clear-cut.
Ah, but if it's to drive a company out of business, that's where Antitrust
comes in… (Since they're selling to everybody else.)
Now, maybe C= wont pay the price, only C= can say.
Bob Comer — Flying high and fast with my A1200HD'030 on Autopilot!
From Cheyenne, Wyoming U.S.A.
hmm…, so I'm given the choice of loading my data in program XYZ
and using only 12 hours of work, or using my HP-48 and using 96 hours
of work, but I can port the data in the HP-48 via Kermit, but not
from program XYZ as I may violate their (XYZ's) precious data
format? Somehow this reminds me of extrortion, not a purchase
agreement.
BTW, this is a "real world" example.
Brian, I don't think your real world example really bears on what
I've been discussing. My point was NOT a legal point, it was this:
If you steal people's efforts, you discourage them from engaging in
more efforts. If their initial effort benefited you, it is likely
that subsequent efforts will also benefit you. If you discourage them
from further efforts, therefore, you are likely to be hurting
yourself.
I believe the most common way to express such a thing is "biting off
your nose to spite your face".
If you, as a customer, tell me that you will steal my work because my
work is being used to benefit you and you want more benefits which
you can get by stealing, then I, as a developer, will likely tell you
that I won't let you use my work. Don't take it personally – it's
just business.
Ben:
Now the question is, if I buy your work (a program), and it generates
files in a specific format, and I paid for the program which runs on an
Amiga, however I want to be able to use the files your program makes in my
Newton while out & about, and I ask you if you either have or will make a
version of your program for the Newton, and your reply is " No, no Newton
version is being planned, and it never will" am I really stealing if I
write a program that is functionally equivelent to your program, and uses
your file format on the Newton? I don't think so, to steal has to remove
some monitary value from you. If you have no plans to make a Newton
version of your software then you have no plans to make money from Newton
users, so if I write a similiar application that uses your format, it
won't take any money away from you. As a matter of fact if anything it
could cause people that wouldn't otherwise buy your product to go out and
buy it as they know they can share data with their Newton!
// -Mike Schiller
\X/ AMIGA! On AutoPilot in sunny Fort Lauderdale
You miss the point. It's not the money you're stealing – at least, not in
the very specific case you described here. It's the idea you're stealing.
If you don't accept that ideas are worthwhile and should be protected as
property, then sure, your viewpoint is right on. However, it's very
counter productive in the sense that it discourages future development,
whether it's right or not.
In the US, ideas have enjoyed some level of protection for some time
(insufficient, IMHO, but nonetheless it's there) and I think this is a
clear indication that even the rather clueless class of drones who make
our laws can see the point, even if they can't address it very well (of
course, since they can't address anything ELSE very well, either, there's
no reason to assume that "ideas as property" is any less important for all
the poor law dealing with them).
The entire thesis of "I want to, so I should be able to" only goes as far
as "until you step on someone elses toes". Just like being able to say
anything you want or make as much noise as you want. So you bought a
Newton and you "want" to use something of mine. Until I say you can, you
can't. That's all there should be to it, as far as I can see. I don't make
the laws, or enforce them – but that IS my opinion.
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
I can't agree with you… I never consider anyone elses data as my
property, simply because it's stored in a format I've written, and that's
what I believe yor saying, (well maybe your saying it's your data, but you
can't use it outside of my program…)
If the mainframe world felt as you do, we be in even more trouble than we
are now… (Sharing data is EXTREMELY between apps, both, ones we've
written and ones we've purchased!)
I believe programs do need to be protected, but not the data formats.
(even ones that I HAVE written.)
Bob Comer — Flying high and fast with my A1200HD'030 on Autopilot!
From Cheyenne, Wyoming U.S.A.
I think you're missing something here. There is a case to be made that
1-2-3 and Excel are "Functionally Equivalent" in that they do much the
same thing. I wouldn't say that either is "stealing" from the other.
Now, let's say that someone wanted to do image manipulation on the Newton.
(Why, I haven't the foggiest, but I'm sure _someone_ will.) Now, if they
call you and ask you if you plan on porting your product to the Newton,
I'm sure that your answer will be "not unless Apple comes out with a Color
Newton." So, this user decides to try to write one (assuming a very large
amount of knowledge on the part of this hypothetical user, I know).
Would this user be "stealing" from you in any fashion? How have you been
injured? And could you PROVE it? Not likely, in answer to any of these
questions.
// Brian — Cruising on AutoPilot…..
\X/
The Company that I work for developes software for Court Reporters
and Video Captioning and we have pulished a documnet interchange
format that we have developed. All we ask is that any company the
implaments it does so for out import and export. I understand all
about developemnt since we didn't make dollar one for around 4 years.