> There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the "software as a service" > concept. In fact, properly implemented, it could be an improvement over the > more common product concept.
Having your house cleaned is a service. Having your yard mowed is a service. What these 2 examples DO NOT have in common with software is that they are consumable, and cannot build upon past work. Software is not consumable, and it can be built upon. To me, software is a product that should never wear out, and should always improve with each new release. Furthermore, each new release should not cost ever more money, because they didn't have to rewrite each new release from scratch - they built on existing code. This is why it is absurd for software to cost ever more money. But it is happening - Protel is costing more, Windows is costing more, Word is costing more than ever before. The trend cannot be sustained: in the year 2040, Protel will be $100,000 per copy, Windows will cost $1,000 per copy, PCs will be $50 each. OK, I'm not saying that these prices will really exist in 2040, just that the "trend" extrapolated indicates that they would be. The other problem with software as a service is that it takes away the incentive to fix problems and add features. Why should you, if you have a guaranteed revenue stream, and you can hold your customer's data hostage to proprietary (undocumented) file formats? > So if I don't like the contract which the seller of software services is > proposing, I don't have to buy it, I'll look elsewhere. I specifically > returned a PADS license because it explicitly permitted PADS to repossess > the software if maintenance was not paid. > > Protel has done nothing like that, they are not anything like that stupid. Good. I am just trying to nip this industry trend in the bud, getting in a preemptive protest before they do. This recent ATS morass has been (and still is) very confusing for me. We need to get back to the "I bought it, it's mine until I sell it or throw it away" concept. Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] ATS Specifications, Terms and Conditions > There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the "software as a service" > concept. In fact, properly implemented, it could be an improvement over the > more common product concept. > > I'm going to assume that the proposed law discussed here does not > circumvent the basic principle that to be enforceable, a contract provision > must be so clearly stated that a reasonable reader of the contract will not > misunderstand it. The responsibility (and cost) of unclarity in a contract > rests with the one who wrote it. > > If, when we decide we want to become, for example, PADS users, we are > clearly informed -- and not just by fine print -- that we are buying the > use of the software for a specified period and not beyond that period, then > we are making a choice to employ the services of the software company for > that time. We will still have remedies under common law where the new law > has not clearly preempted those rights. For example, if I sign a contract > for services, and then I am unable to perform those services, or I perform > them so badly that testimony could be brought and believed that what I did > was against prevailing standards, then my client has a right to refund even > if he has paid for the full period in advance. This is true if time is of > the essence; otherwise I might avoid making this refund if I make good on > the contract. > > (If I am hired as an employee and not as a professional contractor, then > the employer is fully responsible for any errors or failures and he must > pay me as agreed up until I am terminated -- unless my failures are shown > to be willfully negligent or worse, which changes the game. Generally > employees have a right to be paid, they are first in line of a company goes > bankrupt.) > > So if I don't like the contract which the seller of software services is > proposing, I don't have to buy it, I'll look elsewhere. I specifically > returned a PADS license because it explicitly permitted PADS to repossess > the software if maintenance was not paid. > > Protel has done nothing like that, they are not anything like that stupid. > > On the other hand, if the entry price goes way down, software as a service > could be a great idea, and especially if the payment is, say, monthly. If > it were not for the entry price (plus the learning curve), I might buy an > Allegro license, it might actually be worth $800 per month. There is a high > demand for Allegro design and few independent designers able to fill it. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://email@example.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *