Have software producers gone too far?

[ghost_stalker]

I recently reformatted my hard disk and reinstalled my OS and my programs (I do this about every six months when my computer starts to become too slow), and anyways when I went to reinstall my MS office '03 it required me to re-register my program for the program to work and such (this would have been the fourth time reloading it I think). But when I went to re-register the program on my computer it said I had registered my program too many times and wouldnt let me register it again (rendering my program useless).

And my question is this: Should software companies be allowed to limit your usage of your own items?
I dont think software companies should be allowed to control your usage of a product that you have bought, (without a paid subscription required to use it of course)
This type of product-controlling is not allowed in any other industry,
for example if you bought a lawnmower and had to send in for fuel to use it and were only allowed to send in for fuel 3 times before you couldnt use it anymore,
This wouldnt be allowed, would it, of course not.
But still software companies are allowed to put these type of restrictions on products that you have bought and paid for and have every right to use freely as you choose.

I think that any product that you buy you should have full usage rights to said product and that no company under any circumstance should be allowed to deny you usage to your own materials,

[SteveA]

I don't think government should be controlling how people write software and if intellectual property rights were greatly restricted or removed, marketting of software would become more a matter taking public bids to have the software released publicly, with few strings attached.

There are entirely private ways, through agreements and property rights of replacing the patent and intellectual property systems, with greater potential benefit of technologies and reward to inventors also.

It's silly that we have 5 engineers build non-optimal toasters to get around each others patents. There are better things to do. If instead they just built the best one they could, and pooled offers from manufacturers to have the design released, it would benefit everyone more, including the inventors (and remove the ability of people to use government and lawyers to deny you an ability to use your own thoughts). This also detaches producers from inventors, so you wouldn't an invention sitting around being unused because the inventor isn't adequately producing it but still holds the claim. The fact that people can learn things from each other and duplicate needed ideas, in an almost endless fashion, is a good thing, not something we should treat like physical property and regulated into artificial scaricty. Then inventors would run the show instead of patent lawyers.

The fact that so many people have to spend time specifically trying to make ideas public domain is ridiculous. The patent system has become abused and the recent addition intellectual property rights only makes it worse. It used to be you couldn't patent an idea.

There isn't a single direct benefit to the patent system, but there are many direct costs, it was only envisioned that there could be an adequately compensating indirect benefit of the system and looking at the rapid growth in technology and products in foreign nations, we're just cutting our own throats under the current system.

(I'm even an engineer/programmer/inventor but I see the hassles of the patent system as just a waste of a lot of good engineering skills ... and ultimately a way government is abused to own thoughts)

[Jack]

Support Open Source software. That's the simplist answer I can offer. You can't legally defy EULAs and ToSs, but you can avoid them all together.

[Prometheus]

I think these restrictions are a pain. I don't like them. But they are something we have to put up with if we buy thier product. If it's too bad, go elsewhere. They own the software, they can do with it what they want. When you install the software, you press a button saying you agree to the EULA. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.

If the software companies didn't protect thier prodect with these draconian restrictions, the product might not be as good. The company has to make money to get the best programmers. You only get a supurlative product with highly paid professionals.

[Cephus]

The biggest problem, as you point out, is that most software is so badly written that it *NEEDS* to be regularly reinstalled. If Microsoft (and let's face it, that's who we're talking about) actually knew how to write software, it wouldn't be an issue but they write crappy software and then penalize you for the software's crappiness.

And it really isn't an answer to say 'support Linux' or whatever as there isn't a sufficient software base for Linux. When every piece of software out there starts being released for Windows and Linux, we'll talk, but until then, there isn't a good solution.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: ghost_stalker And my question is this: Should software companies be allowed to limit your usage of your own items?

Technically, they're not your own items under our current laws.

When you purchase a program, you're not buying that program. You're only buying a license of limited use of the program.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: SteveA It's silly that we have 5 engineers build non-optimal toasters to get around each others patents. There are better things to do. If instead they just built the best one they could, and pooled offers from manufacturers to have the design released, it would benefit everyone more, including the inventors (and remove the ability of people to use government and lawyers to deny you an ability to use your own thoughts).

I see... So the Wrights should have shared their invention with Curtiss and Langley, and they all would sit around a fire singing cumbayah and all share the profits equally? And you say the current system is silly?

Ahh, the lawyer bashing argument... Very classy. Don't you understand that if someone invents something first, and you come up with it later, it's not "your own thought" for the purpose of selling the idea?

This also detaches producers from inventors, so you wouldn't an invention sitting around being unused because the inventor isn't adequately producing it but still holds the claim.

Umm, is this a problem? I thought that the good inventions got produced and sold, and the bad ones were given away by Dean Kamen to nerds so they can go 12mph on a sidewalk. Seriously though, the free market pretty much assures that good inventions will survive, and bad ones will "sit around".

The fact that people can learn things from each other and duplicate needed ideas, in an almost endless fashion, is a good thing, not something we should treat like physical property and regulated into artificial scaricty.

"Duplicate" is merely your euphamism for "steal". What is my motivation to innovate if I know that the day after I create something, someone can take my idea, sell it for less, and cut me out of the equation?

Then inventors would run the show instead of patent lawyers.

Ahh, more lawyer bashing. Obviously you don't understand the basics of our legal system. Lawyers do not act independantly. They act at the behest of their clients. Furthermore, patent lawyers are transactional and generally do not handle infringement suits.

The fact that so many people have to spend time specifically trying to make ideas public domain is ridiculous.

The fact that you think people would continue to innovate with no hope of return on investment is ridiculous.

The patent system has become abused and the recent addition intellectual property rights only makes it worse. It used to be you couldn't patent an idea.

No, but you could copyright an idea by writing it down. Considering copyrights last much longer and can be renewed, i'd be happy to go back to that, sure.

There isn't a single direct benefit to the patent system,

I think i've shown that there is: Innovation is rewarded through control over return on investment.

(I'm even an engineer/programmer/inventor but I see the hassles of the patent system as just a waste of a lot of good engineering skills ... and ultimately a way government is abused to own thoughts)

Well, next time you innovate something, be sure to send me a copy so I can "duplicate" it and sell it for less. I can assume you won't take any action to stop me from making millions off of your good idea?

[SteveA]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I see... So the Wrights should have shared their invention with Curtiss and Langley, and they all would sit around a fire singing cumbayah and all share the profits equally? And you say the current system is silly?

That's silly. Why wouldn't the Wright brothers charge whatever they felt such a noteworth invention would be worth instead of just giving it freely to them and sharing profits equally and singing cumbayah?

They could just let others know that they were successful in building a flying machine, pool money from people to have the ideas released publicly. I'm certain you could tens of millions of dollars or more back then to encourage them to release their discovering. Singing cumbayah and expecting things to be shared equally is a doomed mindset, dude.

Ahh, the lawyer bashing argument... Very classy. Don't you understand that if someone invents something first, and you come up with it later, it's not "your own thought" for the purpose of selling the idea?

Exactly, it's theft for all I care. There was even a front page article in Electronic Engineering Times showing this exact problem with regard to some new computer developments. 7 companies working on similar technologies had a single one of them receive a rather broad patent that effectively took the work of the other 6 companies and tossed it in the trash can. Maybe it's more of destruction than theft ... but close enough.

Umm, is this a problem? I thought that the good inventions got produced and sold, and the bad ones were given away by Dean Kamen to nerds so they can go 12mph on a sidewalk. Seriously though, the free market pretty much assures that good inventions will survive, and bad ones will "sit around".

Nope, you just assume that's the case.

A good invention could sit unused. There's nothing requiring an invention make efficient use of something. Many companies buy up patents, only to leave them unused, just to limit competition. It's not a matter of someone offering something of value, it's a way to create an artificial scarcity that doesn't help anyone.

If you instead remove the artificial attachment between engineering and production that's created by the patent system - then no single producer (emphasis - producer not inventor) is granted a government monopoly, and good inventions would be naturally utilized efficiently.

"Duplicate" is merely your euphamism for "steal". What is my motivation to innovate if I know that the day after I create something, someone can take my idea, sell it for less, and cut me out of the equation?

Don't get me wrong. I agree it's at least immoral to use someone elses idea to compete in a limited market but the patent system isn't restricted to this. There's no requirement to utilize the patent. Production of it can be done inefficiently. Whether or not alternate developers could compete without significant impact isn't considered and the lifetime of patents is arbitrary.

Ahh, more lawyer bashing. Obviously you don't understand the basics of our legal system. Lawyers do not act independantly. They act at the behest of their clients. Furthermore, patent lawyers are transactional and generally do not handle infringement suits.

Ok, agreed. They're just being paid to do a job. My real gripe is that the job of patent lawyer is possible.

The fact that you think people would continue to innovate with no hope of return on investment is ridiculous.

You didn't read what I said. I'm amazed you jumped to this conclusion. We already have private mechanisms to do this. An inventor can't be forced to release information, and if he did desire to he could also do so under a non-disclosure agreement. We already have property rights to defend developments from being encroached on.

Ok, let me detail why the patent system is just an inefficient and redundant creation (even the creators of it were partly skeptical of its necessity and initially confined it to physical creations only).

Let's assume someone has a cure for cancer made from common household chemicals . Now how does he earn money from this without the patent system? Any way he wants to! He can market it to others, without releasing the details (if someone else figures it out merely by knowing that such a cure is possible, then it likely should never have been patentable anyway because obviously other people could do the same thing). He then collects offers (potentially through an intermediary) and releases the information when satisfied with the compensation.

Oh and the best part of this is that noone else could deny him from doing this either. Under the current patent system, one person could patent the idea and remove this from being legally utilized by others. (Again, consider why so many programmers specifically invest a large amount of extra labor to add notices and agreements to protect their ideas as publicly available? because the patent and intellectual property systems are misused to rob people of their ideas instead and actually deny them from using their own thoughts. It's should be up to someone desiring to profit from an idea to market and sell it, not up to everyone else to try to wade through millions of patents to know whether or not they are violating a law. That's insane and I've experienced it too. Anytime I'm designing something new, it takes just as long to deal with the patent system as it does to design it and then patents aren't granted in any simple and logical manner, it's impossible because it's in the realm of subjective thoughts. You can usually find a few patents on one idea that all overlap and other times it seems apparent that the only thing novel about a patent was the fact that someone thought the idea should be patentable.

Simplify: What you do with your own thoughts and property, is your business. If someone else wants to keep something secret and sell it, that's fine too but it shouldn't impede other people in the process.

I think i've shown that there is: Innovation is rewarded through control over return on investment.

I agree. The patent system takes this control out of the hands of inventors and restricts the value of it as well.

Well, next time you innovate something, be sure to send me a copy so I can "duplicate" it and sell it for less. I can assume you won't take any action to stop me from making millions off of your good idea?

Nice try but you're going to have to buy it :)

[SteveA]

Let's jump back to the basics.

Should government be able to make laws restricting programmers on how they should write their code? No. So no laws should limit the ability of anyone to write whatever they want.

Now, why is it that it's such a pain that Microshaft should have such a monopoly and such an ability to force people to upgrade, and even threated to destroy Linux for possible a couple dozen lines of code that may have been copied from window? They shouldn't have this power.

The mistake lies in believing police can be used to deny other people an ability to use their property and thoughts as they desire.

So, how is it that if the patent and intellectual property system were removed that engineers would be compensated, you ask.

Answer: Any way they want. There is nothing forcing anyone to release information publicly or denying an inventor the ability to develop something in private.

Consider: Is an idea more valuable with strings and limitations attached or freely utilizable by anyone in anyway they wish?

I claim thoughts are much more valuable to everyone, including those who create them, to have suchs thoughts freely usable. If for example, a song is created and marketted on CD without laws and enforcement attempting to deny copying, the music has less overall value to "society" than if it were freely copyable.

Now, I know a lot of people are screaming socialism doesn't work, people need to be able to receive satisfactory compensation through a voluntary exchange in a free market or few people will find the desire to create them, and I entirely agree.

So, let's assume Britney Spears wants to make a new video and sell it. Have could this be done without the current IP system? Simple. They record the video, offer it on a website for release, maybe with some samples of the content but just clips and then collect offers from people to have it released. People with no desire to see it won't pay anything, those with a greater desire offer more. When/if satisfied, the monies offered are taken and the video released (you'd still need arbitration in the event that it didn't live up to the claims made or possibly a third party intermediary that only paid the producers of it after the content was released and it appeared to have met the claims - so instead of a patent system, you'd likely see private institutions become intermediaries between inventors and producers or customers).

Compare the value to people and potential rewards to the producers of this video under the two scenarios:

With the patent system, only a limited number of people see it and so it has less value overall, with a fixed sales price for individual units it's more difficult to charge more to those desiring the product more. So fewer people have access to it, with difficulties and legal overhead to market and distribute it. The prodction is worth less because of this. So maybe 1 million people can see it can pay $5 each for 5 million dollars received. If they spend $1 million producing it and $1 million in controlling legal distributions of it, they'd net $3 million.

Without the patent system, the video is potentially viewable "freely" for anyone with an internet connection and there is no legal system to worry about creating this, so fewer resources are spent enforcing the copy restrictions. Potentially 20 million people could "freely" view this (or more), and even if the average offer were only 50 cents instead of $5 dollars, they'd still earn more than double with fewer costs also because of the lack of need to create a special outlets and methods to legally distribute limited copies.

With regard to physical patents as opposed to intellectual property, the concepts can be applied similarly. Instead of having a company with its own engineers and patent lawyers to support its products, you'd likely see a bit different model where engineering houses would provide a wide range of industries with publicly available knowledge, after having been paid to develop or release the findings and instead of having all these redundant patents with everyone trying to change something enough to, hopefully have it appear subjectively to not violate some other patent, and reinventing wheels over and over again, or stealing someone elses idea by patenting it, or being at the mercy of courts and lawyers because you happen to want to create something, or doing patent searches to see if something is in violation, and hoping the search covered everything, you can instead toss the entire system in the trash and let people do whatever they want with their property and their thoughts, seeking rewards however they feel is satisfactory - with hands off by government - no thought police.

So, if overall ideas are more valuable when they are freely usable without strings, then an hour of innovation is potentially worth more. If the productivity of inventors is increased, their value to others is as well. The only issue is whether or not there's a manner in which to assure these creators see a share of that increased value when legal restrictions are removed. I showed only one manner in which to do this but have thought of other methods as well, I believe capitalism and free markets will find a way to assure people are motivated to keep creating new goodies for us all to play with (and technology grows faster as well when it's not artifically restricted into scarcity ... look at China and see if maybe we're cutting our own throats technologically).

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Cephus If Microsoftactually knew how to write software, it wouldn't be an issue but they write crappy software and then penalize you for the software's crappiness.

Well since it sucks so much, stop using it. I am a "power user" of most software I use, and have found wondows to be adequate. I am going to switch to Macintosh soon though.

You are all bitching about something you use voluntarily. Grow up.

[Prometheus]

BTW - Can we *please* not turn this into another rant filled debate on the validity of intellectual property?

If you guys want to debate the validity of intellectual property, please refer to the copious number of threads on the topic, and take it elsewhere.

INtellectual property is here to stay. Adress the issue.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: SteveA That's silly. Why wouldn't the Wright brothers charge whatever they felt such a noteworth invention would be worth instead of just giving it freely to them and sharing profits equally and singing cumbayah? They could just let others know that they were successful in building a flying machine, pool money from people to have the ideas released publicly. I'm certain you could tens of millions of dollars or more back then to encourage them to release their discovering. Singing cumbayah and expecting things to be shared equally is a doomed mindset, dude.

I don't think you're grasping a huge flaw in your argument here... I was being sarcastic when I was referring to cumbayah... Going back to the Wright Brothers example... You ask why wouldn't the Wright Brothers charge a reasonable price for the rights to build such an invention. I'm not saying they wouldn't try to, i'm saying no one would buy.

Or, going to the toasters again... Let's say you build a brilliant toaster and put it on the market for $20. I decide I want to build your toaster. I call you up, you say, sure, you can have the rights to build that toaster for $1 million. Why in the hell would I pay you for the rights to build it? I can merely go and buy one of your toasters for $20 ($15.96 at Wal-Mart), take it apart, see how it works, and build my own. Since the patent system doesn't exist, THERE IS NO MOTIVATION FOR COMPANIES TO NOT STEAL YOUR DESIGN.... I don't understand why you can't grasp this concept. You keep talking about "negotiating" a "fair price" for someone's ideas, but without a law saying that person's ideas are their property that must be purchased from them, why would businesses do that?

Without some sort of legal system like patents to protect inventors, every inventor would have two options for their ideas:
1) Bring their idea to market, whereupon it would be immediately stolen (sorry, "duplicated") and they would see no profit.
2) To keep their idea from being stolen, never release it to the public. But then what good is it? You complain about inventions being underutilized now...

You didn't read what I said. I'm amazed you jumped to this conclusion. We already have private mechanisms to do this. An inventor can't be forced to release information, and if he did desire to he could also do so under a non-disclosure agreement. We already have property rights to defend developments from being encroached on. Let's assume someone has a cure for cancer made from common household chemicals . Now how does he earn money from this without the patent system? Any way he wants to! He can market it to others, without releasing the details (if someone else figures it out merely by knowing that such a cure is possible, then it likely should never have been patentable anyway because obviously other people could do the same thing). He then collects offers (potentially through an intermediary) and releases the information when satisfied with the compensation.

Wherein every company that DIDN'T put in an "offer" buys one dose of the cure, spends 15 minutes in a lab analyzing it, and comes out with their own without all those pesky research costs to recoup.

Nice try but you're going to have to buy it :)

Ok, I will, for $49.95 at Electronics Boutique when it comes out, wherein i will take your source code, cut and paste it into my own program, and put mine on the market for $20
See the problem?

Ok, agreed. They're just being paid to do a job. My real gripe is that the job of patent lawyer is possible.

The fact that you, a self-proclaimed inventor and programmer who probably could stand to earn a few patents in his lifetime, understands neither the business nor the legal reasons why the patent system is important to nurturing innovation is the clearest proof I have ever seen why the job of patent attorney is not only possible but essential.

[SteveA]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I don't think you're grasping a huge flaw in your argument here... I was being sarcastic when I was referring to cumbayah... Going back to the Wright Brothers example... You ask why wouldn't the Wright Brothers charge a reasonable price for the rights to build such an invention. I'm not saying they wouldn't try to, i'm saying no one would buy.

You missed the idea. I didn't say the Wright brothers could try to sell a right to build airplanes. That's still patent system thinking. What did the Wright brothers actually create - a discovery of how to build a flying machine. So that's what they sell - the discovery. You can't take away someone elses right to try to build flying machines. There had already been many people pursuing this same goal, even at the time of the Wright brothers. That would be theft of others peoples work. So they just sell their discovery to the "public" (a.k.a. any other people who want it). Which would be many people and a very lucrative discovery, without the need to patent it as if it were a single physical object for trade.

Or, going to the toasters again... Let's say you build a brilliant toaster and put it on the market for $20.

No, my labor would not be worth $20 because, as you said, you can be a producer of it by replicating it so it would be worth a lot to you. Maybe you could earn millions, while I only receive $20.

So instead I sell you (and whoever else might be interested) the prototype and blueprints for a large percent of the expected profits, and then you guys can take the idea and run with it from there. I don't have to worry about patents or controlling distribution etc. and the profits you earn from it aren't restricted either.

I don't understand why you can't grasp this concept.

Don't worry the feeling is mutual :)

Wherein every company that DIDN'T put in an "offer" buys one dose of the cure, spends 15 minutes in a lab analyzing it, and comes out with their own without all those pesky research costs to recoup.

True, but then again if they desire to have the information and it isn't physically available for them to see, then they can't analyze anything.

Here, let's try another example - I come up with a great idea for a new carburator for cars. Who is this valuable too - car manufacturers. I sell the benefits of the invention/discovery to car manufacturers. If some don't see any imminent value that they want to make use of, then they don't pay me. They can just wait a few months after I release it to other car companies (who did pay me) and copy it - fine. They didn't see enough of a value to encourage it's release, so that's no problem but then again if I felt it really were worth more I could hold out and see if people would increase the offers. If in the meantime they discovered it for themselves and paid me nothing, that's fine also - apparently it wasn't novel enough to have been restricted anyway and my imagined monopoly on the idea was wrong.

So, yes, the information would eventually spread to people who didn't pay to use it but as long as the inventor has felt satisfactorily compensated to release the information, then there's no party that has been harmed.

Ok, I will, for $49.95 at Electronics Boutique when it comes out, wherein i will take your source code, cut and paste it into my own program, and put mine on the market for $20 See the problem?

Yes, you didn't read what I've posted.

The fact that you, a self-proclaimed inventor and programmer who probably could stand to earn a few patents in his lifetime, understands neither the business nor the legal reasons why the patent system is important to nurturing innovation is the clearest proof I have ever seen why the job of patent attorney is not only possible but essential.

Now if you understood it this time, I'd appreciate an apology.

Don't worry. I can't say I haven't misunderstood some ideas too. It happens. Learn and move on.

[SteveA]

I think I know where people get confused:

There's an assumption that the invention is already public knowledge when it's created.

No, if it were public knowledge, then it wouldn't be a novel invention

The inventor just states the benefits, without revealing the details of the discovery, then sells the whole package to the public when enough people offer to pay a satisfactory amount of money.

Like this:

"Invention for sale: New Carberator - improves gas mileage by 5%, with 10% less costs in construction than current leading designs.

Details available for compensation of $250,000"

(With typical arbitration available over disputes)

There are also other ways that things can be handled with property rights and non-disclosure agreements to pass this to third parties, who can sell it for the inventor (similar to the inventors houses we have now). Free markets and capitalism can work wonders, once the markets are truly free.

[SteveA]

Consider the side benefits of this as well:

If an engineer worked for an aerospace company improving plane designs, currently we have a system where his creations only benefit one company, primarily, whereas without patents his creations apply to the entire industry!

1) Instead of multiple aerospace engineers redesigning things for different companies, the entire industry (with much more resources) would hire engineers with all parties benefitting greater

2) The overhead of the patent systems courts, lawyers, paperwork and police are removed,.

3) Inventors don't need to view the industry as a potential minefield if something they created is viewed as having been patented by someone else.

4) We'd be on even footing with countries that use our patent books as a play guide.

5) Illegal copying would be history while assuring inventors were still satisfactorily compensated and you wouldn't have people feeling we need laws to regulate the software industry because the problems with federally granted patent and IP monopolies (so far 82.5% of the people surveyed here on this poll feel something needs to be changed).

6) No more anti-trust laws would be needed and there would be no more motivation to simply purchase a competing patent and leave it legally unusable - to no ones benefit.

7) There would be no available potential abuses to have someones work literally stolen in the physical sense by having someone else patent the idea and denying you the use of it.

Does anyone "get it" now? And that's why inventions would benefit people more and inventors could claim even greater compensation than they do now - all in the voluntary fashion of free trade too.

Even Thomas Jefferson knew the patent system was an abuse waiting to happen as it already had priorly in England. The principle behind it sounds great, just like the prescription drug plan for the elderly, but just like many other such well intentioned ideas, when backed by force and denying of free market alternatives, it's prone to monopolization corruption and stagnation.

[ghost_stalker]

If there was a free exchange of ideas inventions everyone would benefit, not just the persons and companies involved and more focus could be put on bigger and better inventions that would benefit society even more.
For example, if someone came up with an idea for a car engine that was 50% more efficient and cheaper than that of current engines, and there was a free exchange of ideas and inventions, the whole industry would benefit, as there would be less demand for fuel and less pollutants produced by motor vehicles.
BUT under the patent system the inventor sells his invention to a single company, and now only this company has the designs for the new motor, now the other companies must re-engineer the technology to make sure it is not an exact copy of the patented engine, therefore wasting time and effort making the benefits of such technology inexistant or delayed, under a free exchange system this time and effort could be used to fuel better projects that would further enhance engines.
The patent system is trying to stop the copying of ideas which is inherently impossible because if one man can make it another man can copy it.
The same can be said with any other industry
The echange of free ideas somwhat exists on the internet today, with the release of open-source software people are able to expand on an idea to make it better, or create entirely new programs that are better than that of ones produced by large corporations, take debain linux for example, (debain linux is the basis for most of the free linux releases) it was desinged as an free open source operating system, producing many better systems that the original.

[Jack]

To get back to software for a moment; Open Source is not limited to Linux, Unix or any other *nix anymore. If you don't want to pay MS for Office XP, download and use Open Office. Don't want to pay for Photoshop, use Gimp. Think Outlook is crappy, use Evolution...coming soon. All these apps and more have been ported to Windows and many are available for Macintosh. There are alternatives.

[SteveA]

Thank you Ghost_Stalker. You're my "official" best friend for the next few hours

To get back to software for a moment; Open Source is not limited to Linux, Unix or any other *nix anymore. If you don't want to pay MS for Office XP, download and use Open Office. Don't want to pay for Photoshop, use Gimp. Think Outlook is crappy, use Evolution...coming soon. All these apps and more have been ported to Windows and many are available for Macintosh. There are alternatives.

I do agree that people need to accept what programmers write. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

It's a shame we have a poll that begins with effectively "Should there be a new law ..." and so far 75% of the people think so. I put "no" but change the rights to software option. Imagine how this would be for a programmer to have to comply not only with the current IP system but additional requirements for how to write the code and updates. 2 wrongs don't make intellectual property right. It's always easy to check a box - it's a pain when the police show up.