It was obvious to us, that the "site" was not the one violating things, it was Systems Programmer. We didn't think he had permission from the site to do it, and it appeared that they were completely surprised by the event. Besides, we really can't charge them for running code that we give out for free. The SyzInfo code is as much for us as it is for the site.
The real problem was that after client support sent him the whole subset of products that his old site had licensed, I believe he was trying to wangle a way to get us to provide an alternate key so that they would all work. Had he not been away when I called his office number and his co-worker answered his phone, it would have probably worked and we would have wondered what we did wrong to make the code not work on his box. We already had other z13's using the code, but we can't go around accusing our clients of making things up just because they are the first with a problem. I'm sure after it was working he would have just brushed us off with something like "it's fixed now so don't bother me any more". From a customer support perspective, the client is always right, and we are always wrong. That's just the way it has to be. I'm sure we would have figured it out eventually, but it's hard to deal with a problem when the person reporting it is lying. It's not like I could have called him on it. We probably should have billed them for the wasted time, but we were just so happy that we didn't have a problem that we were willing to just drop it. Looking back on it, we probably should have asked the site to terminate his employment, and they might have done that, I don't know. I like to think that there is karma in these sorts of things. Brian On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 21:37:27 -0500, zMan <[email protected]> wrote: >Brian, > >Interesting story. I have to ask: given that at that point you had evidence >that they were running unlicensed code, why not just send them a bill? The >unspoken "next call will be from our lawyer" might should be convincing, no? > >On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 9:27 PM, Brian Westerman < >[email protected]> wrote: > >> If someone violates a copyright, there are legal and I think criminal >> penalties. But I doubt the FBI will get involved if you decided not to pay >> CA for using Panvalet. >> >> You can't over simplify the issue and decide categorically that all >> vendors that want to "protect" their software are bad. Just like people, >> there are indeed some bad vendors, whether or not they have product >> "protection" doesn't enter into the equation. >> >> How would a vendor even know that someone didn't take a "personal" copy of >> their unprotected code from site A to site B? Does that happen, it sure >> does. >> >> Microsoft did a study several years back on how much time they spent >> fixing problems and helping people who had pirated copies of their code, >> and it was something on the order of 38%. That didn't mean that 38% of the >> people running Windows were running pirated copies, just that during their >> study, 38% of the people who called gave pirated copy codes. >> >> They were losing more money on the support of the code for the pirated >> versions than was deemed "acceptable". The same problem can (and likely >> is) true for other vendors. Several of our Syzygy products come with parts >> that are not protected by keys or code. We frequently get calls from >> people who are not out customers to fix (usually the same problem over and >> over again) problems with the unprotected code who are not very happy when >> we inform them that we can't offer them support for the code without them >> being an actual client, but that doesn't stop them from trying. >> >> We had a person, just a few months ago, (who is a member of this list and >> knows who I am talking about), who called with a "problem" for our SyzInfo >> program (it's a small program we send to sites to display their site >> information, CPU, LPAR, SYSPLEX, MEMORY info, etc., a lot of interesting >> information) because they just got a z13 and our code supposedly didn't >> support it yet. It worked, but didn't give "completely valid" results. We >> actually added support for the box over 18 months before it came out, so we >> were fairly perplexed. When asked for his site-ID, he gave it, (it turned >> out to be one from his old site) and we emailed him the new code for his >> whole product matrix (4 complete products and support modules). Then we >> received a call from him to tell us that the new products would "no longer" >> operate on his CPU. When we asked for the CPU type and serial, he gave us >> his old serial from the old shop, so the client support people re-verified >> and sent out a new copy even though there was no real changes made. He >> told us that it still didn't work so we asked him to execute SyzInfo and >> send a screen print of the results. Instead of the screen print, he >> "supposedly" cut/pasted the results which showed that the product thought >> exactly what was running was what we shipped. He escalated the problem >> (which sent it to me), to be resolved, and I asked him to re-execute >> SyzInfo for the screen print and got the same cut/paste thing, but it was >> different from the original one he sent the day before. The new one had >> several of the values transposed and the CPU was now a EC12 not a z13 as he >> had originally reported having the problem with in the first place. I >> called him and got one of his co-workers who told me that they were not >> running our code, and he had no idea what I was talking about. It turned >> out that they were running a z13 and never had a EC12 (they upgraded from a >> z10 recently). I explained what had just happened and was told that he >> would talk to his boss and that they would handle the "problem". >> >> We never heard back from the person or that site again, but they still >> participate on this site. When I contacted their old site to ask if things >> were okay, I was told that they were going great and they had no problems >> whatsoever, but that the person I was asking about no longer worked there >> and had not for well over 2 years. >> >> Now, I realize that it's just one occurrence of a bad person, which does >> not make every one bad, but in our case, we expended probably 30 man-hours >> of time on a problem that didn't even exist. How many of those could a >> small company, or even a large one absorb? >> >> I would like to say this is a one-time occurrence, but I can't. Similar >> events happen several times a year, but normally it doesn't get to me to >> fix because they discover much sooner that something was amiss. >> >> Our products have built-in protection, actually they all have 3 separate >> protection mechanisms. We offer free trials that can go up to several >> months when necessary, and every product has a built-in allowance of extra >> time after the expiration date and we warn well in advance of the time >> left. Some of the products even tell you every time they execute how many >> days are left, which of course can be turned off (except for the last 30 >> days). >> >> Most vendors don't have a way to enforce voluntary compliance, but I >> believe that the vast majority of them have some sort of protection built >> into their products. And while most people believe that IBM does not keep >> track of product use, they would be wrong. Is it possible to get around >> the protections? You bet. We believe here, and I'm sure that most other >> vendors also believe, that he vast majority if not all of our clients are >> extremely trustworthy, and likewise we hope they think we are trustworthy >> as well. >> >> Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who said, "trust, but verify". :) Who would I be >> to argue with the great communicator? I worked for him for 6 years, he was >> no dummy. >> >> So, I also agree that this shouldn't be another long drawn out fight over >> "to key or not to key", and I also realize that there are some sites who >> might not run our products because they are protected. I don't think it's >> too many because we have over 700 clients. >> >> I realize this is going to sound facetious, but when I first read some of >> the rants from people complaining about how they are not trusted I can't >> help but wonder if they lock their homes and cars. Do they put the WPA2 >> passwords on their routers? Do they have a pin on their phone? And if so, >> is it just that they believe that everyone should trust them, but they need >> not trust everyone else? >> >> I don't expect any non sarcastic responses to this, and I probably >> wouldn't read them anyway, (yes I will, but I probably won't admit it), but >> sometimes I wonder about how people can divide their lives up so simply and >> exactly that everyone else who doesn't do something "their way" is >> "wrong". Is that a sure sign that I'm getting old that I have a hard time >> understanding why there seems to be no such thing as grey any more. If >> you're not 100% "good" then you're "bad", or more likely, if you're not >> 100% "like me" then you're "bad". >> >> What happened to diversity? And why get so virulent about it? >> >> Hopefully this won't start a full rant from anyone, but I'm sure it will, >> especially from the guy who I told you about above. >> >> Brian >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >> > > > >-- >zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
