
Msg 151 is 16 line(s) on 07/09/82 from WAYNE HAMMERLY
to ALL about ETHICS

  This discussion on ethics brings up a number of points
that certainly need serious consideration. (And pose a
number of questions that need answers).
  I tend to agree with Ben on the issue of proprietary
software and supporting it with the PD stuff.  The spectre
of having someone copyright BYE or MODEM then saying we
stole it from them is scary.  The main problem is that
IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING!  At least the first step.
  I am a full-time computer consultant, and just last
week a client engaged my services to get the modem on 
his business computer (a NEC PC-8000) up and running.
Well, I got there, and he presented me with a modem and
the software for it from NEC.  This program (sold by NEC,
for $495(!!!)) was MODEM74!  The documentation was the 
same, the commands the same, and the only difference was
clear and home menu's with NEC's name on top!  
  I'm not kidding, the only changes made were in the screen
formatting that any hacker could accomplish with a few DB
statements.  And NEC is charging $495 for it! (for those
interested, the program is called IE/MODEM and carries the
NEC name.)
  Since many of us release programs in the PD, and I for
one would be furious if one of my programs (or one that I
contributed to) was sold for profit, I think a talk with
an attorney is in order. Anyone have a brother-in-law that
can help?
   In closing, I just have to say I fear that this is only
the beginning, and only the tip of the iceburg. I see 
plenty of trouble ahead.                   --wayne hammerly


Msg 157 is 16 line(s) on 07/09/82 from RON FOWLER
to WAYNE HAMMERLEY/ALL about ETHICS & IE/MODEM

  I have been aware of IE/MODEM for some time now...my 
father-in-law is a flight facilities director (or some-
such) for the FAA; recently FAA purchased somewhere be-
tween 50 and 100 Superbrains W/10 meg-hard disks and 212A
modems for sites around the country.  The communications
package they selected was IE/MODEM, and they paid $195
for each license (again, 50-100 licenses bought).
  I was a bit outraged about all this, and called my ed-
itor at Lifelines, who put me in touch with Mike Olfe at
Lifeboat, who was responsible for deciding what Lifeboat
does and does not offer for resale.  Seems he was con-
sidering IE/MODEM!  I told him what I thought of this
ripoff package, and he told me that he would send a copy
to Ward C ... if Ward agreed that IE/MODEM was in fact the
public domain program, he would not even consider adding
it to Lifeboats product line.    
  Last week I called Ward about something unrelated to
IE/MODEM, and the subject changed to pd software ripoffs.
I asked Ward if he had gotten the package from Lifeboat.
He replied that yes, he had, and agreed that it was a
pure ripoff of MODEM7.  Now hopefully, he'll advise Olfe
of that, and the IE/MODEM people (bandits, not people)
will have lost a distributor.  I'll be following up on
this....  A minor battle perhaps won (perhaps not so minor).
  I hate to belabor the reprehensible nature of this
kind of stuff, but we need to inform people that they
can get this $495 "package" for nothing.  I'll be check-
ing with my Lifelines editor to see if perhaps she can
get Ward to review IE/MODEM.  It would be **very**
helpful if anyone writing for the other magazines (Kelly
Smith, Mike Karras, you there?) to do likewise.  Dave, if you
could get Sol Libes fired up on this one...       --Ron

Msg 159 is 13 line(s) on 07/09/82 from BEN BRONSON
to ALL about REVENGE FOR IE/MODEM

We could also consider more direct forms of revenge --
for instance, propagating messages that point out the pos-
sible problems people will have buying hardware from
companies that are so willing to cheat their users to
the tune of $495 for free software.  Commercial ethics in
the computer business are not high, but (low) standards do
exist.  Companies that violate even these (some may not be
surprised to see Superbrain in that category) should prob-
ably be avoided by any computer buyer who doesn't want to
lose his shirt in maintenance and support.  I have put a
message on my system to that effect.  A widely-disseminated
list of dealers and manufacturers who do things like that
might cause a substantial loss of sales.

Msg 161 is 15 line(s) on 07/11/82 from CHRIS KOEB
to ALL about DISCUSSIONS

WELL.. I haven't been an active contributor as of late.. but
it does seem like things are 'heating up'....
I dont wonder that ward and other pro's are dropping out.
in the regular world.. this stuff used to happen ,
then.. after a few lawsuits, etc.. things settled down
and only 'crooks' were in it.  we (micro's) are still so
young, that there are many growing pains to go thru... 
people like ward and others have been thru them already,
and many, many, times.... so the micro's and the new
learners give some of us 'old' DP people a kick or two,
helping out, and such.. but.. advice is rarely heeded... and
the scalpers have taken over..     if anyone has ever read
Animal Farm by G. Orwell,.. the pigs just became the farmers
I just wish we could all learn from 'history', but I guess
that is too much for mankind.... (or programmer, engineer)

Msg 162 is 80 line(s) on 07/11/82 from WAYNE HAMMERLY
to ALL about ETHICS

  Since I live just outside Washington D.C., and have had
many non-software copyrights (books articles etc) I called
the copyright office.  I got some interesting information:
  The copyright laws have not been clearly defined for
electronic media and software.  Many of the existi statutes
clearly define the scope and media that is covered by
copyright.  The problem being that books, and recordings
are clearly defined, but there are still quite a few
ambiguities in the law with regards to software.  Enough
ambiguities that it may be IMPOSSIBLE to protect ANY form
of PD software!
   The expert I spoke with mentioned that there are various
legalities that may or may not apply.
Under the law of 1978, a work is considered copywritten
from the momemt of conception - even if there has been no
application for copyright.  That means that if you write
it, it's copywritten.  The problem arises when the program
is 'published'.  The laws are written with books and article
in mind, and in this sense publishing means public dissemin-
ation of printed matter.  Now to confuse the issue more,
there are different laws governing the publishing of 'record
works.  These have once again been defined with music and 
sound recordings mind.  In fact the term "SOUND RECORDING"
is actually used in the statute.  What does all this mean?
   There is no clear cut answer.  A program can be covered 
by copyright in one form, and not another, and if the
published version is not copywritten, you may loose all 
rights!  If you publish the OBJ file for example, there are
less problems then publishing the source and the OBJ.
   The consensus seems to be that a program released in the
public domain by the author means that the author waives
ANY AND ALL RIGHTS!  The fact that is bears a copyright
notice MAY OR MAY NOT provide any protection. These laws
have NOT been written to include software, and have not
been tested in court.  Precendents mentioned included
the OSBORNE GENERAL LEDGER program.  Many versions and
enhancements of this public domain program have been
released for sale -- and this has been done legally.
  There seems to be a fine point in the existing laws
that to software oriented people make little sense.
If a program is released in printed form in the public
domain, others may indeed take that code, alter it,
and sell it for profit if they sell the PROGRAM not
the code!  In other words, since NEC does not sell 
the code to IE/MODEM, and it is in a different media
(OBJ rather than ASM ('recorded' rather than 'printed))
they are WITHIN THE EXISTING LAWS!!!!!
    For example:  I can take BYE, XMODEM, RBBS, CHAT,
and MODEM221, alter them, assemble them, and sell them
on a disk for profit, copyrighting the FINISHED 
product, and I am within the law.  Howvere I cannot
do that to MTN22B since the source was never released
in the public domain!  Now even if I include the source
with the COM files, I am still legal, and someone can
take MY enhancements of these programs, alter them and
do the entire thing over again and again and again!
The source that has been released in the public domain
will REMAIN public domain despite the fact that I have
sold my enhancements for profit and my enhancements
(as long as I don't release the code) are mine alone.
   The gist of this is that no one can copywrite BYE
or any other PD program and then keep it out of the
public domain from then on.  The counterpoint to that
is that as the laws now sit, if you release a program
in the public domain there is nothing that legally
prevents some scoundrel from making a profit on it.
Until the laws are re-written, all public domain
software is fair game.  The only bright spot on the
horizon is the fact that non of this has yet been
tested in court.  I am no lawyer, and do not profess
to be an expert on this subject.  I am merely 
reporting what the copyright office has told me
in a very long 'what if this.. ' type conversation.
No one knows for sure until this is put to the test
and even then it will take a number of court cases
that could probably go all the way to the Supreme Court.
   I believe we are seeing the first stage of the cancer
that will eventually kill PD software.  With Ward and
Ron pulling out, others will inevitably follow.

Msg 167 is 14 line(s) on 7/12/82 from CHARLIE STROM
to ALL about ETHICS

I too am getting a little hot under the collar more by the
IE/Modem scam than by those who rework pd sw and represent
it as just that rather than their own creation. I have
uploaded the messages here on this subject to CIS (along
with my own 2 cents) with a recommendation that the
members there write letters of protest to the magazines.
My feeling is that negative publicity will hurt these rip-
offs much more than court cases, and we ought to be able
to swing public opinion I would think.
I agree that we ought to make an increased effort to edu-
cate the public as to the existence and the scope of the
public domain sw arena; its amazing that the magazines avoid
it so scrupulously. Its up to the sysops to spearhead this
public-awareness drive.

Msg 168 is 16 line(s) on 7/12/82 from JIM C.
to ALL about IE/MODEM

Before we lop off NEC's head, has anyone found out whether
or not they actually realized what they were doing?
It would seem that they probably wouldn't jeopardize their
new PC with something so trivial as a 4 line modification
of a well known PD program. While their target customers
probably arn't RCPM/Soft Exchg freaks, the word would
(and probably will at this rate) get around more than
eneough to do some sizable damage to their PR since after
all, their machine is in its infancy.
I would tend to think that the less-than honest person
they contracted to come up with a communications util
decided to pull a fast one and move to his boat off the
coast of Cuba. Does a outfit as large as NEC actually have
part of their software written by outsiders, and is NEC
to be considered knowledgeable enough to rule out knowing
what PD software was available already?       (-Jim C.-)

Msg 170 is 16 line(s) on 07/13/82 from BEN BRONSON
to ALL about IE SYSTEMS CORP.

  The latest InfoWorld has a couple of NEC articles, one of
which features a quote from one Mark Klein, a vice-president
of IE Systems, "a communications-software company that has
worked with many Japanese companies, including NEC."
  It looks as though Mr. Klein's outfit might be the real
villains of the piece, taking advantage of the ignorance of
their Japanese clients (and perhaps of their fondness for
shadily acquired stuff, too) to make a quick buck.  The
Hitachi affair shows that there are a lot of American comp-
anies "working" with Japanese manufacturers whose work
consists of unauthorized borrowing of other people's soft-
ware and hardware.  Now, NEC may be entirely innocent.  But
its choice of associates here makes that a little question-
able.  Pressure on NEC is quite justified, and will produce
longer-term effects than pressure on Mr. Klein.


 #: 17336      Sec. 1 - Members
Sb: #ethics: IE/MODEM
    12-Jul-82  21:31:38
Fm: Bob Warren 70355,1015
To: Charlie Strom

Chairlie (my fingers ain't workin):
      Just read the string of messages about ethics and your ethics
file in xa1.  I completely agree with you.  As an owner of an NEC
PC-8000, I'm shocked re the story on IE/MODEM and the $495 price tag. 
I'm really bewildered about it in fact, because I called NEC some
months ago to ask about terminal programs, and they sent me PLINK and
MODEM (called PLINK and MODEM) configured for the two different RS-232
ports on the NEC  . . . FREE (actually, they didn't even charge for the
disk). o . . . why should they now up the ante so foolishly??  Could it
be that some idiot in marketing is now making decisions without
appreciating  the source of the program?  It would be interesting to
know if NEC will still supply a configured MODEM program free . . .
     Bob

07/11/82
MARK ZEIGER
SYSOP
ETHICS COMMENT
 16
I read with interest your "Ethics" messages and would like to 
add one or two comments of my own. Naturally I'm incensed over
NEC's actions (if what your bulletin says is true) and am
planning to have a chat with them come Monday. It would be 
nice if Ward Christensen gave them a call also.

I don't ever think we're going to see the end of the ripoffs. 
Big business will always take advantage of the little guy and 
I'm not really surprised at NEC's actions. The thing that
really surprises me is the price they're charging. Even if 
it was their own program, $500 for MODEM7 is unethical. 

However, I think the real point is that maybe we're getting
back some of our own medicine. I've been know occasionally 
to take a commercial program from a friend, use it a lot
and not purchase it... 

07/12/82
GEOFF LOWE 
ALL
ETHICS
 4
boycott the bastards; spread the word; consultants and systems
integrators, don't use NEC or any of the others!!!!!!!! 

07/13/82
JOEL SHAPIRO
SYSOP
ARCDIR AGAIN
 16
Ben, 
  I agree on the ripoff situation - - it is indeed disgusting.
Perhaps a boycott is needed keep things clean. I recommend 
members of clubs and users groups let their indiscretion be
known. Hopefully, proof exists for the clap of thunder they're
about to bestow.

07/13/82 
JOHN SOJAK
SYSOP 
NEC INFO 
 7 
The NEC 8023 printer is SUPER. Just because of  
one shiester, dont condem NEC ( I do, although  
side with 'buy American' to a point.)  
Ive had the NEC for over a year, NO problems 
a'tall. Beats an Epsom or Centronics 7--, for sure.
  (damn tab)bye --> JP Sojak  
