Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!rochester!kodak!doering
From: doering@kodak.kodak.com (Paul F. Doering)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Latest code-copying decision
Message-ID: <1990Sep11.185105.14201@kodak.kodak.com>
Date: 11 Sep 90 18:51:05 GMT
Sender: doering@kodak.kodak.com (Paul F. Doering)
Distribution: na
Organization: Kodak Research, Rochester NY
Lines: 47

The 9/11/90 edition of the Wall Street Journal carries an article headlined
"Limits Placed on Software Duplication" and begins with a statement to the
effect that there are circumstances under which user's rights of duplication
are restricted. Various unspecified sources express their opinions that the
ruling by a US district court judge in Philadelphia defines fair use of
copyrighted software narrowly.  If so, the information actually given in the
article doesn't support those opinions.

(Notice that -- except for the headline, which I cite here to help readers of
legitimately purchased copies of the WSJ find the article in question -- 
I am paraphrasing to avoid infringement.)   :-)

The case involves suits and countersuits between IBM and Allen-Myland Inc, a
company that apparently makes a living by modifying IBM mainframes to enhance
their utility to the people who own (not lease) those mainframes. After a
lengthy litigation the surviving claim was IBM's that A-M had copied
proprietary microcode already installed in these machines and should instead
have bought extra copies of the microcode rather than duplicating what the
customer had already bought and paid for. (I believe that A-M modified the
copied microcode and then installed the modified version to meet requirements
unique to the company that owned the IBM mainframe.)

The judge's ruling confirmed IBM's position. Apparently the deciding (and
defining) aspect was A-M's intention to use the copied software (microcode) for
commercial gain.  One presumes that if A-M were a not-for-profit organization,
there would have been no basis for IBM's complaint. It would be interesting to
guess what would have been the outcome if the computer owners were accused of
modifying the microcode on their own IBM machines or if the modifications were
being done altruistically by the Girl Scouts to earn an electronics badge.

I can't see this decision as setting the narrow standard claimed by the
article.  It says nothing about my freedom to copy software for back-up, which
is surely the most common reason for duplicating.  It does not make even more
illegal the already illegitimate practice of copying software in order to avoid
having to pay the money rightfully due its creator.  What it does establish
specifically is that I can't buy a copy of your software product and then pay
Fred over there to duplicate it and charge me a fee for modifying it to my
specs. It establishes Fred's liability as the law-breaker in such a case. I
can't see why that's a bulletin to anybody, can you? Given that the WSJ and I
are reporting the facts with fair accuracy, do you think that this is such a
precedent-setting moment in the history of computing?

-- 
=======================   ====================================================
Paul Doering (for self)   Enough small empty boxes thrown into a big empty box
   doering@kodak.com                                               fill it up.
=======================   ========================= -Carl Sandburg ===========