4/1/1982 Off Track on PiratesIn the old days, sailing ships had problems with pirates. Two great nations used opposite solutions to reduce the piracy. Spain increased the cannon and armor on its ships. This increased the weight, cost and slowed down the vessels making them less desirable as a shipping vehicle. England, conversely, did the opposite. It lightly armed its small, inexpensive ships thus making them lighter and faster. They were better at their intended purpose—to trade and deliver cargo quickly. History has shown us that England won, not because they avoided pirates better than Spain, but because they did not let pirates get in the way of good business—in this case, efficient shipping. This bit of historical fact has great import in the software piracy problem of today. Many companies are spending too much time and money worrying about pirates. They reduce, if not ruin the usability of their products (programs) with locked disks, unlistable programs, secret source code, hidden locks, codes in ROM chips, full-page ads devoted to pirates, etc. These devices have made many programs inefficient, costly to produce and support. The buyer is taxed greatly for he cannot make modifications or back-up copies. Often he is inconvenienced by added expenses for back-ups or future modifications. This hurts sales and angers good customers. There is a better way as exemplified by our company Andent, Inc. We produce Apple II software for health professionals (medical/dental systems, appointments, hypnosis, et cetera). We have been in business since 1978, which makes us one of the oldest software houses for microcomputers. We are making a profit . . . and always have. We pay our bills and programmers on time. All our software is unlocked and can be copied for back-up purposes. We support all sales offering free replacement of damaged disks. All our software is listable and can be modified by the user. There is internal as well as written documentation.
We do business in this way because it pays. It pays us, and it pays our customers for buying our software. Because our software is unlocked, there is little to no problem with back-ups, updates, changes in DOS, hard disk compatibility, slot compatibility, printer slot and special character problems, disk recalls, and equipment incompatibility. The business community, our customers, like this. They are buying a program . . . not a software lease. They have immediate support since changes and problems can be made over the phone or by letter. They can back up immediately and for as many times as needed. They like our low prices. Unlocked software is good for business, our business, your business, and the customer's business. But what about pirates? Large scale pirates, those enterprising souls who copy our programs and sell them worldwide, are discovered and given an option to become our dealers and pay us a royalty on distributed software (or meet us in court). As in the old sailing days, reformed pirates (privateers) make the best dealers and we don't mind sharing the wealth. For those who don't want to cooperate, we go back in history for the remedy. The English and Spanish both learned that a few executions were good for the morale of the troops. Small-time pirates (give it to your friends) can be controlled by low program cost, registration, continuing updates and documentation. It just doesn't pay to get our programs second-hand. Andent, Inc., believes that a sale of software is just that—the sale of programs,listings, source code, backup capability . . . a complete sale. Our customers do not buy a disguised lease—they buy and own our products. We do this because locking programs is very expensive, time-consuming, and hurts sales. It is time the industry realizes, like the sailing ships of old, that our prime business is producing and distributing a product, not fighting pirates. E. J. Neiburger, president, Andent, Inc., Waukegan, IL - V2N8 2/1/1982 A Kick When You're DownWhile your magazine is a greatly needed interface between consumer and industry, it is interesting to note that the consumer still seems to get short-circuited. I read in a recent issue of your magazine that Broderbund Software was offering an upgraded joy-stick version of Snoggle for those who had purchased the keyboard version. I anxiously attempted to take advantage of this offer. However, upon contacting Broderbund, I was informed that I was a couple of days late; they had sold all Snoggle material to Atari and cannot deal with this product. They suggested that I contact "my" Atari dealer and continue to "enjoy" the version that I have. I'm certain "my" Atari dealer will love to take care of me and my Apple. Maybe he will offer me an upgraded version if I agree to take receipt of an Atari 800. Sounds like a deal to me. As most probably know, it is not all fun and games the way it is written in your magazine. I just wish to make you and perhaps some readers aware of this type of unfortunate "big business" dealing that will sour the appletite of many personal computerlsts.
If things like this continue, it will be easy justification for anyone to bootleg, rob, or steal such software. "Aye—Mate, pirate or perish" might be the only answer. Jerry Roberts, Melbourne, FL - V2N5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The letter you received from Broderbund stated, ". . . as of October 21, all Snoggle material became the property of Atari. . . ." You have jumped to the conclusion that Broderbund sold Snoggle to Atari. They did not. Threatened lawsuits from Atari and injunctions from that company and its parent, Warner Communications, based on the similarity of Snoggle to the arcade game, Pac-Man, were more than a small, family-owned company such as Broderbund could fight. Therefore, Atari took Snoggle. The apology in your letterfrom Broderbund is sincere. The question is, indeed, one of piracy, or, at least, of copyright violation. Programmers such as Jun Wada did not see the translation of a program from one medium—the arcade—to another—the Apple home computer—to be a violation. Neither, at first, did the arcade gamemakers. Recently, the worm has turned, and Atari has been demanding royalties on and/or removal from the market of any products that resemble their own. In many cases, their objection is open to question, but most software companies don't have the resources to stand up to the multimegabusinesses behind Atari. Ken Williams of On-Line Systems, with slightly more resources than others and even a great deal of courage, is doing so. Softalk will keep you informed of the results. (See Tradetalk, page 44.) The controversy will be covered in depth in the January issue of Softline, Softalk's sister publication. Even if Broderbund's actions had been everything you interpreted them as, it would not constitute the least excuse for you to engage in piracy. Boycott—doing without a program—is an appropriate response to business practices you don't like; theft is not. Softalk Respone to Jerry Roberts - V2N5 12/1/1981 Trust is best protectionI'd like to say something as a new Apple owner on the subject of protected disks. I have no respect for a company that tries to sell me a program then charges me for a backup. I will do anything to break those disks, spend any amount of money to do it. On the other hand, to a guy like Scott Adams who sells me a program and tells me to first make a backup I will do everything I can to respect his program by not giving copies away and asking my fellow Apple owners to do the same. To him I send thanks from Apple owners of the world. Last but not least, what to do about companies that make programs that don't work and tell you it's your fault or the mail's fault that it doesn't work: so far I haven't found out what to do about this, nor can I get anyone else to say anything. A point in case is software from Crystal. Every program that has come into this area has had the same problems. I have returned one disk, Laser Wars, three times with the same problem; it has done the same thing on at least six other Apples yet the company says it's not the program.
P. J. Carroll, Fort Story, VA - V2N4 Can you tell me what the difference between the [Softpom] ad and any of my Locksmith ads is? Except the sweetheart relationship between a major software house and your publications. Censorship is one thing—hypocrisy is another.
P.S. Feel free to publish this letter if you want. David M. Alpert, Omega Software, Chicago, IL - V2N4 1/1/1981 Too Many ChipsWait! Don't take me off your mailing list! Your pub is great! Also, how about comments on problems, in particular the $55 DOS 3.3 package? I already have the chips (part of Pascal Language System) , all I need is the software pieces, but Apple refuses to price just the programming. (Yes, I wrote them a letter. No reply!) So I have the choice of paying for chips I don't need, or "finding" the software. Pirate, you say! Well, who is the pirate—most—Apple or me? How about asking your readership—or maybe Apple—why they won't unbundle?
G. D. Gauck, Raleigh, NC - V1N5 11/1/1980 The basic con jobI just received my first issue of your magazine. The article entitled "The Basic Con Job" really hit the mark as I am being paid to write a CAI program (in Integer), and I wanted to insert my name in the credits without someone erasing it. I had searched all the documentation I had and had almost given up hope when your magazine arrived. Now, I can have my name in lights indelibly!
Jay Riddell, Hayward, CA - V1N3 |