Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT

2003-09-11 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
At 09:38 PM 9/10/2003, you wrote:
I guess I was referring to those who just want to rip-off, or copy,
someone else's design.  In a sense, I did find it funny when someone comes
to me asking me to replicate someone else's design, and it happens to be 1
of my own PCB designs.  It's happened more than once to me.
That's not terribly surprising if you are specialized and do contract 
engineering.

I wouldn't call that lazy, I'd call it probably illegal and likely 
unethical. Some people are protected -- a little -- from gross unethical or 
criminal behavior by their laziness.

Now, do I waist time going after them, or, further develop 2 additional
new patents which have more than quadruple to value each?
You do what you do well, and you let others do what they do well.

In this case, if there is enough money in it to pay legal costs, you let a 
lawyer do it, even if you get nothing out of it and possibly even if you 
lose money; the latter depends on whether or not you can afford the loss 
and the public service and satisfaction of clobbering miscreants is worth 
it to you. Ideally, perhaps, you have a clean case and you find a lawyer 
who will take it on contingency, but that will probably reduce your recovery.

There have been a number of times when I was ripped off by someone and I 
could have gone to court for recovery, but I've never sued anyone, even in 
small claims court. It is one of my regrets, actually. I'd rather have lost 
some money and wasted my time than allow grossly unfair behavior (like a 
landlord routinely keeping deposits without cause) continue unchallenged. 
As it is, I did the preliminary research to identify the actual landlord, 
instead of the agent, and I succeeded in that, but then, in the case I have 
in mind, I never got around to filing the papers. It was $1000 and I had 
too much else to do at the time, if I want to excuse my procrastination.

So what do you do if someone comes to you asking for a design to be 
duplicated? Are there conditions you would set?

I'm a printed circuit designer, not a legal or patent researcher -- even 
though I might do some legal research on occasion -- and I generally will 
do jobs that come in the door. I might even do work ultimately intended for 
military application. Maybe. It occurs to me that I could ask the client to 
affirm in writing that he had the legal right to reproduce the PCB. If the 
client tells me that it is a rip-off, I'd have to refuse the job, my 
question is about the case that some plausible excuse is given and it is 
difficult to verify.

But it doesn't happen very often, it's been quite a few years since I saw a 
job like this.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT

2003-09-10 Thread Brian Guralnick
 I mentioned this because I know that a designer might be approached by
 someone who wants to make such a thing. He might provide a photo of an old
 board and say that he needs to reproduce it, the originals have been lost,
 he might claim.

You mean something like this:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1u=/netahtml/srchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=6058192.WKU.OS=PN/6058192RS=PN/6058192

_
Brian Guralnick


- Original Message - 
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT


 At 07:56 PM 9/9/2003, Brian Guralnick wrote:
   misdemeanor. Selling the boxes appears to be a public offense (if I'm
   correct, public offenses are prosecutable as felonies). Relevant to
the
   interests of printed circuit designers, printed circuit boards are
   specifically mentioned.
 
  That's because any pirated boxes have been stolen from the cable
 company, or manufacter.  Such cable boxes are only sold between the
 manufacturers (ie Scientific Atlanta, GI - Jerrold, Pioneer...) and the
 cable companies.  Any of the boxes which are purchased separately between
 you  a store dealer, must be stolen units, or stolen property, not to
 mention that these units have also been modified intentionally for theft
of
 signal as well.

 No, I don't think this is correct, or at least it isn't complete. The
 reference is to non-authorized decoders which are sold on the black
market.
 They are not generally stolen, per se, though they may represent
 unauthorized use of intellectual property or such things as copied circuit
 boards. The reference is to devices to defeat the scrambling. Sure, the
 legal box does that, but a new law wouldn't have been needed to deal with
 theft of boxes Rather someone may have reverse-engineered a box or may
 have developed an independent decoder.

 I mentioned this because I know that a designer might be approached by
 someone who wants to make such a thing. He might provide a photo of an old
 board and say that he needs to reproduce it, the originals have been lost,
 he might claim. (And certainly I've been asked to reproduce PCBs where the
 films etc. had completely disappeared.) Designers are not obligated to
 confirm that a design request is legitimate, but if it did become
 reasonably clear that it was not legitimate, and the designer provided
 services to further the end of unlawful use, I think the designer might be
 exposed to criminal liability. This is entirely aside from the ethical
 question.





* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT

2003-09-10 Thread Brian Guralnick
 I mentioned this because I know that a designer might be approached by
 someone who wants to make such a thing. He might provide a photo of an old
 board and say that he needs to reproduce it, the originals have been lost,

I guess laziness has no-bounds.

_
Brian Guralnick


- Original Message - 
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT


 At 07:56 PM 9/9/2003, Brian Guralnick wrote:
   misdemeanor. Selling the boxes appears to be a public offense (if I'm
   correct, public offenses are prosecutable as felonies). Relevant to
the
   interests of printed circuit designers, printed circuit boards are
   specifically mentioned.
 
  That's because any pirated boxes have been stolen from the cable
 company, or manufacter.  Such cable boxes are only sold between the
 manufacturers (ie Scientific Atlanta, GI - Jerrold, Pioneer...) and the
 cable companies.  Any of the boxes which are purchased separately between
 you  a store dealer, must be stolen units, or stolen property, not to
 mention that these units have also been modified intentionally for theft
of
 signal as well.

 No, I don't think this is correct, or at least it isn't complete. The
 reference is to non-authorized decoders which are sold on the black
market.
 They are not generally stolen, per se, though they may represent
 unauthorized use of intellectual property or such things as copied circuit
 boards. The reference is to devices to defeat the scrambling. Sure, the
 legal box does that, but a new law wouldn't have been needed to deal with
 theft of boxes Rather someone may have reverse-engineered a box or may
 have developed an independent decoder.

 I mentioned this because I know that a designer might be approached by
 someone who wants to make such a thing. He might provide a photo of an old
 board and say that he needs to reproduce it, the originals have been lost,
 he might claim. (And certainly I've been asked to reproduce PCBs where the
 films etc. had completely disappeared.) Designers are not obligated to
 confirm that a design request is legitimate, but if it did become
 reasonably clear that it was not legitimate, and the designer provided
 services to further the end of unlawful use, I think the designer might be
 exposed to criminal liability. This is entirely aside from the ethical
 question.





* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT

2003-09-10 Thread Brian Guralnick
I guess I was referring to those who just want to rip-off, or copy,
someone else's design.  In a sense, I did find it funny when someone comes
to me asking me to replicate someone else's design, and it happens to be 1
of my own PCB designs.  It's happened more than once to me.


Example:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1u=/netahtml/srchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=6088052.WKU.OS=PN/6088052RS=PN/6088052

My concept of line muting was demoed under non-disclosure to a company
called H3D back in 97.  They were informed that it was my own concept  that
I had applied for a patent.  It was a simple means to get 3D on the desktop
with win95/98 with any 2D or 3D graphics accelerator.  1 year later, they
managed a cheap knock off of the line muting, they sold themselves out of
business because of poor business practices to a company called Illixco, who
now makes an oem version of their 3D glasses with a box that does line
muting, bugged  incorrectly I might add, which allows them to play movies
on the desktop  or explore some web pages in 3D.

 Now, do I waist time going after them, or, further develop 2 additional
new patents which have more than quadruple to value each?

_
Brian Guralnick


- Original Message - 
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT


 At 11:51 AM 9/10/2003, Brian Guralnick wrote:
   I mentioned this because I know that a designer might be approached by
   someone who wants to make such a thing. He might provide a photo of an
old
   board and say that he needs to reproduce it, the originals have been
lost,
 
 I guess laziness has no-bounds.

 I'm not sure that I understand what Mr. Guralnick means here. The
situation
 described can be legitimate, i.e., a manufacturer may have lost the
 fabrication data for an old pcb; I encountered this situation with a large
 elevator manufacturer who need to make a board that was last made ten
years
 before. The old design worked fine, they did not need something new, and
 all they had was one of the PCBs. It was clearly theirs, it had their name
 etched on it! They paid me to, essentially, copy the design. It was, in
 fact, one of my early Protel jobs. I photographed the board with a digital
 camera, and brought the image into Protel with one of the
 graphics-to-Protel-track utilities that are still available. I then
created
 footprints and drew new track over the old (the old was on a mech layer).
 It would have been just as easy to design the board anew, but they
 specifically did not want a new design, they wanted something exactly like
 the old.

 As part of the process, I did discover some errors in the original design,
 one or two floating inputs, which can be in practice harmless but which
can
 bite you when you least expect it.

 As a step further down the path to disrepute, another potential customer
 came to me one time and claimed that a designer working for him had
 abandoned the project in mid stream and all he had was a prototype
 board This gets pretty dicey, but it would also be difficult, in
 practice, to confirm or deny the truth of the story.





* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

2003-09-09 Thread Leo Potjewijd
At 09/09/2003 06:12, Ian wrote:
Enough! surely!

Hasn't anyone got real work to do?


Hear! Hear! 



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT

2003-09-09 Thread JaMi Smith
Please see below . . .

- Original Message -
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: JaMi Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] License Legalities


 At 12:31 AM 9/8/2003, JaMi Smith wrote:

  A perfect example of . . .

 Since Mr. Smith wrote  . . .

Abd, Ian, and the group,

At the risk of being flamed on, I actually believe that I can bring this
topic to a very short conclusion. If Abd or anyone else that is interested
will simply go to the following link and then put a check next to Penal Code
and then do a search on the word software, and then find his way to
California Penal Code Section 502.

  === http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

In an effort to keep this short, this deals directly with the issue of
software, and computer crime, which is the issue at hand, and forgoes any
discussion of Cable TV signal theft which was brought up by me as an
example (and which Abd actually admits is an exact parallel of his
argument), and which I am also willing to discuss further offline.

Please note that this is the Penal Code, which deals with public offenses
(i.e.: crimes - criminal law), and does not even address the issue of
civil law (which is another whole large case of cans of worms). Please
read the entire section carefully, especially the intent portion of
subdivision (a), and specifically note:

502
. . .
   (b) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the
following meanings:
   . . .
(6) Data means a representation of information, knowledge, facts,
concepts, computer software, computer programs or instructions.  Data may be
in any form, in storage media, or as stored in the memory of the computer or
in transit or presented on a display device.
. . .
   (c) Except as provided in subdivision (h), any person who commits any of
the following acts is guilty of a public offense:
. . .
(2) Knowingly accesses and without permission takes, copies, or
makes use of any data from a computer, computer system, or computer network,
or takes or copies any supporting documentation, whether existing or
residing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer
network.
. . .
   (d) (1) Any person who violates any of the provisions of paragraph (1),
(2), (4), or (5) of subdivision (c) is punishable by a fine not exceeding
ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison for
16 months, or two or three years, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or
by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by imprisonment
in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and
imprisonment.
. . .

And please don't be so ridiculous as to try and say that making a copy to
take home without permission for your own personal use or your own
commercial use in performing work for yet again someone else is within the
normal scope of your employment.

Please note that if your employer caught you trying to take a copy of his
$8K Protel software without his permission, and he was ticked off enough at
you and wanted to make an example out of you and call the police, the charge
upon which you would be arrested, handcuffed, and hauled off to jail, would
be Section 502(c)(2) of the Penal Code (I am sorry that I do not have an
Annotated Copy in front of me so that I can give you further details from
the actual case law). Needless to say, there would be many other things
that he could additionally do to you in terms of civil law.

Please also bear in mind that if Altium were in fact to attempt to make an
example out of your employer and go after your employer in a big bucks
civil lawsuit for violating the license agreement, your employer would
have a very very large incentive to offload the whole problem onto you by
simply pressing criminal charges against you based on the above section of
the Penal Code (or whatever local equivalent there may be in your neck of
the woods).

While I can't actually find a copy of my EULA right this very minute for my
Protel 99 SE, which I purchased from Altium North America here in
California, I do know that my EULA for my Protel DXP specifically states
that it is governed by the Laws of the State of California.

Abd (or anyone else), If you wish to carry this discussion any further,
please contact me offline, and I will be glad to discuss it further with
you.

JaMi



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

2003-09-09 Thread Bagotronix Tech Support
 Enough! surely!

 Hasn't anyone got real work to do?

In THIS (U.S.) economy?  What do you think?  ;-)

All kidding aside, yes I have real work to do.  But sometimes it's good to
blow off steam, and one way to do that is through creative writing and
humor.

Best regards,
Ivan Baggett
Bagotronix Inc.
website:  www.bagotronix.com


- Original Message -
From: Ian Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] License Legalities


 Enough! surely!

 Hasn't anyone got real work to do?

 Ian




* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT

2003-09-09 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
Those who are not interested in the topic of the legal boundaries around 
the use of a Protel license are advised to skip this message.

At 04:58 AM 9/9/2003, JaMi Smith wrote:
At the risk of being flamed on, I actually believe that I can bring this
topic to a very short conclusion.
Perhaps. I will be relatively brief. Mr. Smith posts references to 
California law, Penal Code Section 502, which, while it could be read to 
apply to any copying of software without permission, does not appear to be 
intended for that, as can be seen from the introduction to the section. I 
don't have ready access to case law to see if the section has been used for 
this purpose. The California law provision of the Protel software license 
is not relevant to this discussion.

Most of what I wrote in this thread was a contradiction of the common 
reference to software piracy as theft. It is true that the law may 
consider the right to deny public use of a program to be a thing which can 
be stolen, when, say, the copied program is distributed, but I very much 
doubt that this redefinition could be a legitimate part of a criminal 
prosecution for a single act of unauthorized copying. Criminal law is 
strictly construed. The Code calls computer crime (unpermitted access to 
data, etc.) to be a public offense, which is the correct terminology. In 
other sections, it calls theft theft.

Cable TV Signal Theft of a kind analogous to unauthorized personal use of 
software (i.e., having a subscription to a cable service and using an 
unauthorized decoder to access premium services) appears to be a 
misdemeanor. Selling the boxes appears to be a public offense (if I'm 
correct, public offenses are prosecutable as felonies). Relevant to the 
interests of printed circuit designers, printed circuit boards are 
specifically mentioned.

And please don't be so ridiculous as to try and say that making a copy to
take home without permission for your own personal use or your own
commercial use in performing work for yet again someone else is within the
normal scope of your employment.
... a defense attorney might very well argue that the software was taken 
home in order to sharpen the alleged offender's skill at using the program. 
More to the point, one who intended to use the software for outside 
purposes could first obtain permission to install it on his own notebook, 
perhaps for educational purposes or for doing extra work at home for his 
employer. Then, taking the notebook home, he'd be secure from prosecution 
under even the farthest stretch of Section 502 even if he subsequently used 
the computer for other work. I'm not saying it would not be an offense of 
some kind, but Section 502, no. His act of copying was lawful. True, a 
hotshot prosecutor might try to claim that running the software later would 
cause it to be copied from the hard drive to RAM, and that this was 
copying without permission. I don't think it would fly in court, the law 
was not written for that.

Unauthorized copying of copyrighted or other proprietary material, outside 
of fair use, is definitely considered by the law an offense against the 
public interest, and under some circumstances is criminal. But it's not theft.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT

2003-09-09 Thread Brian Guralnick
- Original Message - 
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: JaMi Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT


 misdemeanor. Selling the boxes appears to be a public offense (if I'm
 correct, public offenses are prosecutable as felonies). Relevant to the
 interests of printed circuit designers, printed circuit boards are
 specifically mentioned.


That's because any pirated boxes have been stolen from the cable
company, or manufacter.  Such cable boxes are only sold between the
manufacturers (ie Scientific Atlanta, GI - Jerrold, Pioneer...) and the
cable companies.  Any of the boxes which are purchased separately between
you  a store dealer, must be stolen units, or stolen property, not to
mention that these units have also been modified intentionally for theft of
signal as well.

_
Brian Guralnick




* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT

2003-09-09 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
At 07:56 PM 9/9/2003, Brian Guralnick wrote:
 misdemeanor. Selling the boxes appears to be a public offense (if I'm
 correct, public offenses are prosecutable as felonies). Relevant to the
 interests of printed circuit designers, printed circuit boards are
 specifically mentioned.
That's because any pirated boxes have been stolen from the cable
company, or manufacter.  Such cable boxes are only sold between the
manufacturers (ie Scientific Atlanta, GI - Jerrold, Pioneer...) and the
cable companies.  Any of the boxes which are purchased separately between
you  a store dealer, must be stolen units, or stolen property, not to
mention that these units have also been modified intentionally for theft of
signal as well.
No, I don't think this is correct, or at least it isn't complete. The 
reference is to non-authorized decoders which are sold on the black market. 
They are not generally stolen, per se, though they may represent 
unauthorized use of intellectual property or such things as copied circuit 
boards. The reference is to devices to defeat the scrambling. Sure, the 
legal box does that, but a new law wouldn't have been needed to deal with 
theft of boxes Rather someone may have reverse-engineered a box or may 
have developed an independent decoder.

I mentioned this because I know that a designer might be approached by 
someone who wants to make such a thing. He might provide a photo of an old 
board and say that he needs to reproduce it, the originals have been lost, 
he might claim. (And certainly I've been asked to reproduce PCBs where the 
films etc. had completely disappeared.) Designers are not obligated to 
confirm that a design request is legitimate, but if it did become 
reasonably clear that it was not legitimate, and the designer provided 
services to further the end of unlawful use, I think the designer might be 
exposed to criminal liability. This is entirely aside from the ethical 
question.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT

2003-09-09 Thread JaMi Smith
Response moved to the  Protel Open Topic Forum at Techservinc.Com

I apologize for not moving it over there sooner.

JaMi


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

2003-09-08 Thread Bagotronix Tech Support
 There are a whole new class of statutes which have been appearing recently
 (or at least getting a lot of attention in recent years), and that is in
the
 arena dealing with the areas of illgotten gain and unlawful
enrichment.
 I am not quite sure that these areas deal only with the civil arena, but
 rather I believe that they also get into criminal law as well.

Too bad those statutes don't apply to companies such as Microsoft.  If there
was ever a company that achieved their market position by ill-gotten gain
and unlawful enrichment, it's Microsoft.

Not verbatim, but functionally equivalent conversation excerpt from U.S.
Dept. of Justice Antitrust Division and Microsoft chairman Bill Gates:

DOJ:  Mr. Gates, we find that Microsoft is a monopoly according to our
official definition of monopoly, and that you have used illegal business
practices such as bundling and exclusivity agreements to extend this
monopoly.
Bill:  Yeah.  So?
DOJ:  Oh, nothing.  We just thought we'd mention it.  Have a nice day.

Best regards,
Ivan Baggett
Bagotronix Inc.
website:  www.bagotronix.com


- Original Message -
From: JaMi Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: JaMi Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] License Legalities





* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

2003-09-08 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
At 12:31 AM 9/8/2003, JaMi Smith wrote:
A perfect example of the New World Philosophy which states that there is no
right or wrong, and I can do anything that I want to, and you have no right
to tell me what is right or wrong, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical.
Since Mr. Smith wrote this, appending my rather long message in its 
glorious entirety to his mail, I assume I must have somehow expressed the 
philosophy he describes. I'd appreciate knowing exactly where I did this, 
so I can avoid it in the future.

I mean gee whiz, sure I stole a fifty thousand dollars from Bill Gates or
some other billionaire, but he won't miss it, and he certainly won't ever
use it, so it must be OK then because I need it.
Apparently Mr. Smith has totally missed the point. No one, by personally 
using Windows software in violation of the license agreement, has stolen a 
penny from Mr. Gates. Rather, such a person may have violated copyright 
law, a violation which might give Mr. Gates the legal right to recover 
something from the violator.

The state, in order to encourage the arts and sciences, has established 
copyright and patent rights. Violating copyright is not theft. I think 
that's a period at the end of the sentence. It is an action that may be 
against public policy and law.

Now, this isn't particularly relevant, but it used to be that copyrights 
expired. They were valid for a certain period, and could be renewed once. 
The period was 26 years, as I recall. However, in the seventies, the law 
was changed. The present rules are rather complicated:

For works published after 1977, the copyright lasts for the life of the 
author plus 70 years. However, if the work is a work for hire or is 
published anonymously, the copyright lasts between 95 and 120 years, 
depending on the date the work is published. All works published in the 
United States before 1923 are in the public domain. Works published after 
1922, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date of 
publication. If the work was created, but not published, before 1978, the 
copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. However, even if 
the author died over 70 years ago, the copyright in an unpublished work 
lasts until December 31, 2002. And if such a work is published before 
December 31, 2002, the copyright will last until December 31, 2047.

Why did the law change? Could it have been the result of effective lobbying 
by the publishing industry (software wasn't yet an issue)? Copyright and 
Patent rights are established in the U.S. Constitution, *for limited 
times.* The change in the law happened gradually, as I recall. Congress 
extended existing copyrights for a time, then for another time. Eventually, 
I think it was realized that some new limit had to be set.

Copyright violation is a quasi-civil offense. It gives the owner of the 
copyright the right to go to court to enforce the copyright and to collect 
damages and costs, i.e., legal fees. When the owner goes to court, theft 
will not be alleged, at least not in a formal way. Rather, the owner may 
seek to establish and collect the commercial value of the infringing use. 
If the copyright was registered, the owner may also be entitled to an award 
of statutory damages, amounts that are disconnected from actual damage, 
which could be up to $100,000 per infringement.

But gee whiz officer, I didn't hit anybody, and I am in a hurry, so why
should I have to stop at every one of those stop signs or only go 25 miles
per hour down this residential street, when I wasn't causing any problems by
going 50.
Funny you should mention that. There is a U.S. Federal standard for how 
speed limit signs are to be set, and generally the individual States are 
required to follow that standard. Basically, speed limits are not supposed 
to be set without an engineering study, and the basic criterion is the 85th 
percentile speed of actual unimpeded traffic on the road in question; the 
limit would properly be set, rounded up to the nearest 5 mph. Now, I've 
noticed that it is *extremely* common that the median speed is in excess of 
the posted speed limit. That's a clue that the speed limit has been set way 
too low.

Like most states, I think, Massachusetts has a basic speed law, which is 
essentially that it is an infraction to travel faster than a speed which is 
reasonable and proper. However, to make enforcement easy, and for certain 
other purposes, not the least of which may be the tremendous revenue 
generated, there is a law which establishes that speed in excess of the 
posted speed, as established according to the regulations of the highway 
department, is considered prima facie evidence that the speed was not 
reasonable and proper.

I will now confess that -- some of you may be shocked, I'm sure -- I have 
been known to travel faster than the posted speed on occasion. A few months 
back, I was travelling through the town of Williamsburg at a place where 
the speed drops rapidly 

Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

2003-09-08 Thread Ian Wilson
Enough! surely!

Hasn't anyone got real work to do?

Ian



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

2003-09-07 Thread JaMi Smith
Tim,

Firstly, you state If I have a valid license, and then turn right around
and state registered to the company I work for.

I take that to mean that the company that you work for is the purchaser and
licensee of the Protel software in question.

In other words, your employer, and not you yourself, is the owner of the
Protel license.

That means that from an ethical and legal standpoint, your employer, and not
you, is the one that must decide what the Protel license must be used for.

Assuming that your employer has a single seat license, it is up to him as to
who uses that single seat, and additionally, where that single seat is used.

I am assuming that this goes a little further, and that you are really
asking is whether or not you can use a copy of your employers single seat
license of Protel which might be installed on your own computer at home, to
do work on that single seat for a third party.

This needs to be handled as two different issues:

1.) Your employer has the ethical and legal right to install and use his
copy of Protel on any computer system or network that he so chooses, and in
any location that he so chooses, providing that it is only operated by one
person at a time, which is the limit of his single seat license.
Notwithstanding what the end user license agreement may state, this would
extend to your employer asking you to install it on your own computer system
at your own home, so that you could do work for him in the evenings or on
the weekends, or even work at home, all providing that amongst all of the
computers that it may be installed on, it was only operated by one person
overall at any given time, again which is the limit of his single seat
license. Your employer, as the licensee, can do this, but you, as an
employee, have absolutely no right whatsoever, to install a copy of the
software on your own computer at home, unless your employer asks you to do
so. Please note that from a legal perspective your employer must be in
control of the license, and of the computers that it is installed on, and
the software must be removed once you cease to be in the employ of your
employer, or at any other time that your employer may demand. In reality
here, so long as your employer is in control of the license, and so long as
no more copies of the licensed software are operated at the same time than
allowed by the license, a court of law would find that there was virtually
no difference in whether the software was used in the next room, or the next
city 37 miles away.

2.) Now to what I believe might be the real issue. Can you use your
employers Protel software license, to perform work for someone else. This is
entirely up to your employer, who is the licensee of the software. Both
legally and ethically, you cannot use it for any reason whatsoever without
the full knowledge and consent of your employer. Would your employer allow
you to use his licensed copy of Protel on his own computer system where you
work every day, either during lunch of after hours, to do work for some
other company? Your employer is the person who owns the license, and as
such, he has the right to use it in any fashion that he so chooses, which
includes allowing you as his employee to use it in any fashion that he (your
employer) so chooses, as long as the usage remains within the scope of the
license. Can your employer allow you to use it on your own computer at home
to do whatever work for whatever reason that he approves of? Again the
answer would be the same as above, so long as your employer is in control of
the license, and so long as no more copies of the licensed software are
operated at the same time than allowed by the license, It would be
acceptable.

Now to the bottom line.

Is it legal or ethical for you to install a copy of your employers licensed
Protel software on your own computer at home without your employers express
knowledge and consent?

ABSOLUTELY NOT ! ! !

Is it legal or ethical for you to do any work of any kind either for
yourself or someone else or some other company on your employers licensed
Protel software either on his computer at your place of employment or on
your own computer at home without your employers express knowledge and
consent?

ABSOLUTELY NOT ! ! !

It's really very simple, the short answer is no.

At the risk of possibly being a little bit too presumptious, I will now say
that you should do what is legally and ethically the right thing to do and
take Protel off of your computer at home.

JaMi Smith


- Original Message -
From: Tim Fifield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 12:26 PM
Subject: [PEDA] License Legalities


 If I have a valid license of Protel registered to the company I work for
am
 I legally allowed to use it for work that I'm doing for another company?
 Both companies are in a different field of electronics and would not be
 competing in any way.


 Tim Fifield




* * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT

2003-09-07 Thread JaMi Smith
things. Some of these things may have applied to the story in the paper that
you mention below.

I myself have no problems with most of these Agreements, since I believe
that if am being paid to think for someone, the product of my thoughts is
part and parcel of the service I am performing. By the same token, If I am
not being paid to think, what I think of is mine.

JaMi


- Original Message -
From: Jon Elson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] License Legalities


~ ~ ~

 Yeah, there was a real nice story in the paper last year, I think.  A
 guy who worked
 for Alcatel came up with an idea.  He ran it by the corporate powers,
 and they
 had no interest in the idea, and I believe he got that in writing.  He
 quit, and
 developed the product to the point that he started selling it, or at
 least showing
 it to potential customers.  He is now a legal slave of Alcatel,
 developing the product
 and doing custom modifications for free.  He expects to be required to
 support the product
 for free for the life of the product, unless his lawyers can find a way
 to break the
 terms of the agreement he apparently signed.  If he fails to continue to
 work on this,
 they apparently can jail him on contempt of court charges.  I think they
 also have
 a requirement that he take no other job for the duration of this.  If I
 recall correctly,
 this is going on in Texas.  The product WAS very related to his work,
 and the business
 of Alcatel, which certainly clouds the picture.  I think Alcatel would
 be totally
 justified to enforce some of the terms of the usual non-compete
 agreements and
 trade secret protection, and could make him work (as an employee) of
 Alcatel,
 or make him take the product off the market.  Even forcing him to turn
 over the
 entire product, and spend a certain amount of his own time documenting it
 and bringing Alcatel employees up to speed on it would be reasonable.
 But, this slavery business, with no end in sight, is just too much!




* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

2003-09-07 Thread Matt . VanDeWerken
Others have already answered this question, but if there's any doubt at all
in your own mind, you have a couple of options available to you.

1. Get company #2 to pay for a valid protel licence.

2. Install autotrax, the old dos-based protel that is now available for free
download from altium. It's not as slick as P99SE, but it beats pen and paper
design...

3. You can install something like eagle for free to do non-commercial work,
do the work, and get company #2 to pay for an eagle licence. Eagle is much
cheaper than protel, too.

Personally, I'd not use the protel 99SE license from company #1 if there was
any doubt at all in my own mind, but different people have different ethics
and different circumstances, too.

Cheers,
Matthew van de Werken - Electronics Engineer
CSIRO Exploration  Mining - Gravity Group
1 Technology Court - Pullenvale - Qld - 4069
ph:  (07) 3327 4685 fax:  (07) 3327 4455
email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send HTML email?
http://www.georgedillon.com/web/html_email_is_evil_still.shtml


 -Original Message-
 From: Tim Fifield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Friday, 5 September 2003 5:27 AM
 To: Protel EDA Forum
 Subject: [PEDA] License Legalities
 
 
 If I have a valid license of Protel registered to the company 
 I work for am
 I legally allowed to use it for work that I'm doing for 
 another company?
 Both companies are in a different field of electronics and 
 would not be
 competing in any way.
 
 
 Tim Fifield
 
 
 


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

2003-09-07 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
I'm reminded of an old story. A poor and hungry man walked by a 
street-vendor's stand, with cooking meat, it smelled delicious. He stood 
there inhaling the odor. The vendor demanded that he pay for the privilege 
of smelling the food. When no payment was forthcoming, the vendor called 
the police and insisted that he and the alleged odor-thief be taken before 
a judge.

Before the judge, the vendor insisted that the poor man had deliberately 
enjoyed the odor of his food and had refused to pay for it.

The judge thought about this for a bit, then he asked the poor man if he 
had any money. The reply was, Just this coin. Hand it to me, said the 
judge.

Then the judge asked the vendor to approach the bench. He held out the 
coin, but when the vendor reached to take it, the judge said, No, I'm only 
allowing you the smell of his money.

Copyright is a statutory invention. There has been a major effort on the 
part of businesses which depend on copyrights to equate copyright violation 
with theft. It may be a tort, in some cases, but theft it is not. In theft 
a tangible is removed from the possession of its legitimate owner, the 
owner suffers a clear loss. With copyright violation, of the kind where 
someone uses software without permission or downloads a piece of music 
without payment or permission to the copyright owner, the owner has not 
lost anything; that is, the position of the owner is the same as if the 
violation had not occurred.

However, Microsoft, the RIAA, et al, will claim that they have lost so 
many billions of dollars, basing this on the supposed lost revenue, 
generally calculated as if all those illegal users had paid for the 
software or music. But it is not at all clear that *anything* has been 
lost; in some cases it is quite possible that the income of the owner is 
greater because of the theft. For example, the most often illegally used 
software is undoubtedly operating system software sold by Microsoft. 
Whenever a user buys another computer without an O/S and installs a 
previously-owned copy of Windows on it without deinstalling it from the 
user's previous computer, that's a license violation. But did Microsoft 
lose any money because of this? Sure, if the user went out and bought 
another copy of, say, Windows 2000, Microsoft would have made some more 
money. But the user who is likely to keep using a license like this is not 
so likely to buy another copy; rather, he or she might instead uninstall 
the system from the other computer, replacing it with, perhaps, an old copy 
of W98 from an even older computer that isn't going to be used. Or might 
simply junk the old system.

Microsoft has changed the possibilities by its new multiple-installation 
prevention system in XP. In other words, Microsoft has made it impossible 
to steal XP like this. Now, has preventing this theft increased their 
income? I do wonder Certainly their income has not skyrocketed as it 
would have been predicted if the now-impossible theft were actually theft 
of income. My guess is that the sales of XP has been hurt by the new 
protection. How much, I don't know.

It happened years ago that I used a copy of a Microsoft program, taken 
(with permission) from an employer's copy. That was certainly a copyright 
violation. But did Microsoft suffer a loss? Definitely, they gained. Why? 
Because when I wanted to upgrade, I bought the next revision, and the next, 
etc. Now, if I *hadn't* become familiar with the program, if I hadn't made 
that violating copy, what would I have done? I would *not* have gone out 
and bought the Microsoft program at the start. At the time, I couldn't 
afford it. I'd have made do with something else. And I'd probably have 
continued with something else.

Now, as to the present occasion for all this verbage: as has been amply 
stated, there is a tendency to use the term illegal to refer to 
activities that might violate an explicit or implicit contract. It is a bit 
sloppy. Generally, it is not illegal, per se, to violate a contract. 
Rather, it is a tort, a harm. Because it may be possible to recover 
damages, we may speak of the action as illegal. But if there are no 
damages, if I am correct, normally there will be no recovery. Copyright 
violations may be an exception, but only because of the statutory 
peculiarities of copyright.

But it's not copyright I'm discussing now, it is the right of the employer 
to (1) consent or withhold consent to the outside use of the program by the 
employee, and (2) consent or withhold consent to moonlighting by the employee.

(We don't know that the employee is considering moonlighting, it is merely 
possible from what he wrote. He might only be employed part-time.)

Clearly, the employer has those rights. However, if the employee does not 
give the employer those rights, if the employee, without permission, uses 
the licensed copy of Protel assigned to him for other work (presumably on 
his own time), if the employee takes on other 

Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

2003-09-07 Thread JaMi Smith
A perfect example of the New World Philosophy which states that there is no
right or wrong, and I can do anything that I want to, and you have no right
to tell me what is right or wrong, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical.

I mean gee whiz, sure I stole a fifty thousand dollars from Bill Gates or
some other billionaire, but he won't miss it, and he certainly won't ever
use it, so it must be OK then because I need it.

But gee whiz officer, I didn't hit anybody, and I am in a hurry, so why
should I have to stop at every one of those stop signs or only go 25 miles
per hour down this residential street, when I wasn't causing any problems by
going 50.

I don't care how much you attempt to justify the situation, what's right is
right. and what's wrong is wrong.

Truth is truth, and it does not change or waiver to suit the needs of the
moment, or to justify ones actions, or excuse ones behavior, I don't care
how much you want to philosophize or wax eloquent.

Licensed Software that costs $8K a copy is a tangible asset as well as a
proprietary asset of the company that paid for it, and theft of a copy of
that asset is still theft, or actually it would be considered grand theft,
which in and of itself is an unlawful act in most jurisdictions,
notwithstanding any tort which would or would not be a civil action totally
separate from the criminal charges involved.

If you don't believe this, then steal a copy of Protel from a Government
Contractor's facility and see how fast the FBI locks you up and throws away
the key and then charges you with a Felony.

Ethically, you're justification simply does not map to reality.

That's like trying to say that you wouldn't have paid for a Cable TV
Subscription anyway, so the Cable Company didn't loose anything by your
using a Cable TV Descrambler to get free Cable TV.

That is exactly the same argument that you are stating below. Identical.

Well I've got news for you. In this State, it's not only theft (unlawful -
illegal), it's a Felony, punishable by imprisonment (not just a few days in
the local Jail, but a few years in State Prison).

Ethical? There is absolutely no question that it is unethical, and I would
bet that it would certainly be grounds for termination at just about every
company that ever bought a Protel license, if you were caught taking the CD
ROM and Access Codes home without permission.

Remember, we are not talking about a Protel licensee that allows his
employee to take a copy home and install it with his permission, or at his
request. We are talking about an employee taking a copy home and installing
it without asking.

It would be totally futile to attempt to argue any specific points with you
below, since you have already redefined both ethical and lawful behavior to
conform to your own standards of right or wrong, and to justify your own
world view, and if you can't even see or admit to that, there is nothing
that I can say or do that would make you see that or change your mind.

JaMi

- Original Message -
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] License Legalities


 I'm reminded of an old story. A poor and hungry man walked by a
 street-vendor's stand, with cooking meat, it smelled delicious. He stood
 there inhaling the odor. The vendor demanded that he pay for the privilege
 of smelling the food. When no payment was forthcoming, the vendor called
 the police and insisted that he and the alleged odor-thief be taken before
 a judge.

 Before the judge, the vendor insisted that the poor man had deliberately
 enjoyed the odor of his food and had refused to pay for it.

 The judge thought about this for a bit, then he asked the poor man if he
 had any money. The reply was, Just this coin. Hand it to me, said the
 judge.

 Then the judge asked the vendor to approach the bench. He held out the
 coin, but when the vendor reached to take it, the judge said, No, I'm
only
 allowing you the smell of his money.

 Copyright is a statutory invention. There has been a major effort on the
 part of businesses which depend on copyrights to equate copyright
violation
 with theft. It may be a tort, in some cases, but theft it is not. In theft
 a tangible is removed from the possession of its legitimate owner, the
 owner suffers a clear loss. With copyright violation, of the kind where
 someone uses software without permission or downloads a piece of music
 without payment or permission to the copyright owner, the owner has not
 lost anything; that is, the position of the owner is the same as if the
 violation had not occurred.

 However, Microsoft, the RIAA, et al, will claim that they have lost so
 many billions of dollars, basing this on the supposed lost revenue,
 generally calculated as if all those illegal users had paid for the
 software or music. But it is not at all clear that *anything* has been
 lost; in some cases it is quite possible

Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

2003-09-07 Thread JaMi Smith
Almost forgot.

There are a whole new class of statutes which have been appearing recently
(or at least getting a lot of attention in recent years), and that is in the
arena dealing with the areas of illgotten gain and unlawful enrichment.
I am not quite sure that these areas deal only with the civil arena, but
rather I believe that they also get into criminal law as well.

- Original Message -
From: JaMi Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: JaMi Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] License Legalities


 A perfect example of the New World Philosophy which states that there is
no
 right or wrong, and I can do anything that I want to, and you have no
right
 to tell me what is right or wrong, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical.

~ ~ ~



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

2003-09-06 Thread John A. Ross
 -Original Message-
 From: Jon Elson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 12:14 AM
 To: Protel EDA Forum
 Subject: Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

Wow dude,

Guess I touched a personal nerve here ? Which seems to have clouded your
perception of what I wrote. 

But without the full picture or appreciation of our employees FULL TC
and working environment, I fail to see what makes you so informed as to
compare me to the type of corporate tyranny you mention below.

If I ever took things personally I might be offended :-) 

So I wont respond directly to what you have written below as I am
nothing like the kind of person you are insinuating. 

Good luck with whatever good crusade you are on.

As a last thought, our longest serving employee, excluding myself, has
been with us 14 years of their own choice. Our shortest serving employee
is 3 years, after him the least length of service of the others is 6
years. We operate a flat management structure where we all work on the
same level. There ages range from 23 to 56. All of them are welcome to
resign with only 1 weeks notice if they wish (that IS in their TC). No
slavery here.

Not exactly the same picture as you painted below.

But such discussions are much more fun over a beer, instead of a list
server, as words alone only ever convey cold sentiment  no sincerity
whatsoever, so very often are taken out of context.

Best Regards

John A. Ross

RSD Communications Ltd
8 BorrowMeadow Road
Springkerse Industrial Estate
Stirling, Scotland FK7 7UW

Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 225 (Office)
Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 248 (Lab)
Fax +44 [0]1786 474653
GSM +44 [0]7831 373727

Email   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW http://www.rsd.tv
==
 
 








 
 
 
 
 John A. Ross wrote:
 
 
 I would not also say it was restrictive, if you worked on any 
 confidential projects or used proprietary technology I am sure your 
 employer would have you under personal NDA or contract even 
 AFTER you 
 left them.
 
 Yeah, there was a real nice story in the paper last year, I think.  A 
 guy who worked
 for Alcatel came up with an idea.  He ran it by the corporate powers, 
 and they
 had no interest in the idea, and I believe he got that in 
 writing.  He 
 quit, and
 developed the product to the point that he started selling it, or at 
 least showing
 it to potential customers.  He is now a legal slave of Alcatel, 
 developing the product
 and doing custom modifications for free.  He expects to be 
 required to 
 support the product
 for free for the life of the product, unless his lawyers can 
 find a way 
 to break the
 terms of the agreement he apparently signed.  If he fails to 
 continue to 
 work on this,
 they apparently can jail him on contempt of court charges.  I 
 think they 
 also have
 a requirement that he take no other job for the duration of 
 this.  If I 
 recall correctly,
 this is going on in Texas.  The product WAS very related to his work, 
 and the business
 of Alcatel, which certainly clouds the picture.  I think 
 Alcatel would 
 be totally
 justified to enforce some of the terms of the usual non-compete 
 agreements and
 trade secret protection, and could make him work (as an employee) of 
 Alcatel,
 or make him take the product off the market.  Even forcing 
 him to turn 
 over the
 entire product, and spend a certain amount of his own time 
 documenting it and bringing Alcatel employees up to speed on 
 it would be reasonable. But, this slavery business, with no 
 end in sight, is just too much!
 
 
 The principle is easy, if the company invests in them, they should 
 invest in the company with their best efforts and loyalty. 
 In fact we 
 even invested in them by paying the fees for vocational training or 
 education they wish to take on their own time, for personal 
 improvement 
 as long as it increases their skills base used within the company. 
 Because of this even some of our assembly operators have attained 
 education to degree level.
   
 
 Sure, you should work for your employer when he's paying your salary. 
  But, I have
 heard of so many cases where a guy who designed aerospace parts, for 
 instance,
 thinks up an idea for a better fishing reel, on his own time, 
 and ends 
 up having to
 give all profit to the employer.  (There are, I'm sure, lots of cases 
 that can be
 found where the employee used some facilities or company time 
 to develop the product, that changes the picture very much.)
 
 Jon
 
 
 



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

2003-09-05 Thread Jon Elson


John A. Ross wrote:

For one, all my employees are prohibited from taking on paid work in
similar fields or making use of skills and/or training and/or company
resources the company has invested in them and/or made available to them
in the course of their employment,(for personal benefit, payment in
kind, hire or financial reward I believe the terms are) or second job
without the companies consent. There is of course provisions to protect
the employees rights should the second job or work not be related to
their day job or the investments made by the company in them.
 

Boy, that's a pretty restrictive agreement.  I'm glad I have never been 
asked
to sign anything like that.  It would literally prohibit a plumber from 
fixing
a leaky faucet in his own home!  (That's the personal benefit part.)

Jon



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

2003-09-05 Thread John A. Ross
 -Original Message-
 From: Jon Elson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 7:18 PM
 To: Protel EDA Forum
 Subject: Re: [PEDA] License Legalities
 
 John A. Ross wrote:
 
 For one, all my employees are prohibited from taking on paid work in 
 similar fields or making use of skills and/or training 
 and/or company 
 resources the company has invested in them and/or made available to 
 them in the course of their employment,(for personal 
 benefit, payment 
 in kind, hire or financial reward I believe the terms are) or second 
 job without the companies consent. There is of course provisions to 
 protect the employees rights should the second job or work not be 
 related to their day job or the investments made by the company in 
 them.
   
 
 Boy, that's a pretty restrictive agreement.  I'm glad I have 
 never been 
 asked
 to sign anything like that.  It would literally prohibit a 
 plumber from 
 fixing
 a leaky faucet in his own home!  (That's the personal benefit part.)

Jon

Without being able to read the rest of it might seem like that. I did
say above that there is provisions to protect their rights elsewhere,
that was a sincere statement.

I would not also say it was restrictive, if you worked on any
confidential projects or used proprietary technology I am sure your
employer would have you under personal NDA or contract even AFTER you
left them.

The principle is easy, if the company invests in them, they should
invest in the company with their best efforts and loyalty. In fact we
even invested in them by paying the fees for vocational training or
education they wish to take on their own time, for personal improvement
as long as it increases their skills base used within the company.
Because of this even some of our assembly operators have attained
education to degree level.

They are as important to invest in as EDA software, machines or anything
else :-) and their loyalty is something that is earned, not bought or
constrained by contract.

Best Regards

John A. Ross

RSD Communications Ltd
8 BorrowMeadow Road
Springkerse Industrial Estate
Stirling, Scotland FK7 7UW

Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 225 (Office)
Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 248 (Lab)
Fax +44 [0]1786 474653
GSM +44 [0]7831 373727

Email   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW http://www.rsd.tv
==
 
 

 

























* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

2003-09-05 Thread Jon Elson


John A. Ross wrote:

I would not also say it was restrictive, if you worked on any
confidential projects or used proprietary technology I am sure your
employer would have you under personal NDA or contract even AFTER you
left them.
Yeah, there was a real nice story in the paper last year, I think.  A 
guy who worked
for Alcatel came up with an idea.  He ran it by the corporate powers, 
and they
had no interest in the idea, and I believe he got that in writing.  He 
quit, and
developed the product to the point that he started selling it, or at 
least showing
it to potential customers.  He is now a legal slave of Alcatel, 
developing the product
and doing custom modifications for free.  He expects to be required to 
support the product
for free for the life of the product, unless his lawyers can find a way 
to break the
terms of the agreement he apparently signed.  If he fails to continue to 
work on this,
they apparently can jail him on contempt of court charges.  I think they 
also have
a requirement that he take no other job for the duration of this.  If I 
recall correctly,
this is going on in Texas.  The product WAS very related to his work, 
and the business
of Alcatel, which certainly clouds the picture.  I think Alcatel would 
be totally
justified to enforce some of the terms of the usual non-compete 
agreements and
trade secret protection, and could make him work (as an employee) of 
Alcatel,
or make him take the product off the market.  Even forcing him to turn 
over the
entire product, and spend a certain amount of his own time documenting it
and bringing Alcatel employees up to speed on it would be reasonable.
But, this slavery business, with no end in sight, is just too much!

The principle is easy, if the company invests in them, they should
invest in the company with their best efforts and loyalty. In fact we
even invested in them by paying the fees for vocational training or
education they wish to take on their own time, for personal improvement
as long as it increases their skills base used within the company.
Because of this even some of our assembly operators have attained
education to degree level.
 

Sure, you should work for your employer when he's paying your salary. 
But, I have
heard of so many cases where a guy who designed aerospace parts, for 
instance,
thinks up an idea for a better fishing reel, on his own time, and ends 
up having to
give all profit to the employer.  (There are, I'm sure, lots of cases 
that can be
found where the employee used some facilities or company time to develop
the product, that changes the picture very much.)

Jon



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

2003-09-04 Thread Brad Velander
Tim,
sounds like this would be a simple ethics question. Company #1 paid for the 
license, should company #2 be able to receive free benefit from the use of that 
license without the permission of company #1? Not ethically, one (you) would be 
ethically bound to seek approval from the owner of the license to use it for the 
benefit of company #2. Or for your personal benefit if you are contracting your 
services to company #2 and using the licensed tool.
If your 'employer' is contracting some work for the second company, then they 
have the right to use that license for their business. In that case they are doing the 
contract work and can rightly use their licensed software. At least with any common 
software licenses. I am sure there are some very specialized software licenses that do 
restrict how a company may use the software within their normal business.

Sincerely,
Brad Velander.

Lead PCB Designer
Norsat International Inc.
Microwave Products
Tel   (604) 292-9089 (direct line)
Fax  (604) 292-9010
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.norsat.com



 -Original Message-
 From: Tim Fifield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 12:27 PM
 To: Protel EDA Forum
 Subject: [PEDA] License Legalities
 
 
 If I have a valid license of Protel registered to the company 
 I work for am
 I legally allowed to use it for work that I'm doing for 
 another company?
 Both companies are in a different field of electronics and 
 would not be
 competing in any way.
 
 
 Tim Fifield


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

2003-09-04 Thread Harry Selfridge
The Protel license is a user license.  It gives you the right to install 
and use it on a machine, lan, etc - depending on what you paid for.

It does not restrict for whom the work is done.  If you use a properly 
licensed copy of Protel, you can design a board with that software for 
whomever you wish.  The registered owner of the license may have 
restrictions on how you use their purchase, but Altium doesn't.

Altium wouldn't be able to sell their products if they tried to control for 
whom you can do work.  A service bureau, for example, may use Protel 
software to do designs for dozens of different companies during the course 
of a year.

At 04:26 PM 9/4/03 -0300, you wrote:
If I have a valid license of Protel registered to the company I work for am
I legally allowed to use it for work that I'm doing for another company?
Both companies are in a different field of electronics and would not be
competing in any way.
Tim Fifield
snip



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

2003-09-04 Thread Mark Koitmaa
Tim- I'm not a lawyer but common sense tells me this isn't a software 
license issue.

Assuming your employer is the legal licensed owner of the software, it is 
their right to tell you how you can use the software as long as it doesn't 
violate the software license and other laws.

To be absolutely safe you would probably need to get your employers 
written permission to use the software for work not related to your employer.

Mark

At 12:26 PM 9/4/2003, you wrote:
If I have a valid license of Protel registered to the company I work for am
I legally allowed to use it for work that I'm doing for another company?
Both companies are in a different field of electronics and would not be
competing in any way.
Tim Fifield




* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

2003-09-04 Thread John A. Ross
 -Original Message-
 From: Tim Fifield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 8:27 PM
 To: Protel EDA Forum
 Subject: [PEDA] License Legalities
 
 If I have a valid license of Protel registered to the company 
 I work for am I legally allowed to use it for work that I'm 
 doing for another company? Both companies are in a different 
 field of electronics and would not be competing in any way.

Whole other can of worms in that question.

Regardless of the license issue, what does your employers contract say
about this. 

For one, all my employees are prohibited from taking on paid work in
similar fields or making use of skills and/or training and/or company
resources the company has invested in them and/or made available to them
in the course of their employment,(for personal benefit, payment in
kind, hire or financial reward I believe the terms are) or second job
without the companies consent. There is of course provisions to protect
the employees rights should the second job or work not be related to
their day job or the investments made by the company in them.

Although I would see your dilemma as more of a professional ethics
issue, than a Protel s/w license issue, your employment contract would
well be worth a look.

In any case I think the best people to ask would be your HR people or
your direct superior.

Best Regards

John A. Ross

RSD Communications Ltd
8 BorrowMeadow Road
Springkerse Industrial Estate
Stirling, Scotland FK7 7UW

Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 225 (Office)
Tel +44 [0]1786 450572 Ext 248 (Lab)
Fax +44 [0]1786 474653
GSM +44 [0]7831 373727

Email   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW http://www.rsd.tv
==
 
 



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Re: [PEDA] License Legalities

2003-09-04 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
At 03:26 PM 9/4/2003, Tim Fifield wrote:
If I have a valid license of Protel registered to the company I work for am
I legally allowed to use it for work that I'm doing for another company?
Legally allowed is a somewhat vague term, in fact. But I'll agree with 
all the others who noted that there is nothing in the Protel license that 
would prohibit you from doing this.

the company I work for also does not give us, really, much information. 
All we know from it is that you use Protel to do work for that company. 
Your relationship with that company is unstated. Are you an employee? A 
contractor or independent designer?

Generally, if something isn't illegal, it's legal I can't think of any 
law, as such, that would prohibit you from using that company's license to 
do other work. However, when and how you do the work might be an issue, and 
there are, as others have mentioned, possible ethical issues.

If you don't do anything to injure the company that owns the license, and 
you don't violate the terms of your employment with them, you are legally 
safe, I'd say. But that doesn't necessarily make what you would do ethical.

The company which owns the license does have the right to set conditions on 
your use of the license. I've been provided with licenses many times by 
companies, and they were always quite happy to let me use the license for 
other work, as long as it did not get in the way of my work for them.

To get more to the meat of the matter, let me suppose what might be a 
common situation: you are using Protel at work, perhaps you have a 
full-time job with the company. You want to take your CD home and install 
it on a computer there and moonlight doing other work.

Protel reps have often stated that they do not mind such multiple 
installations, as long as the same license is not used by more than one 
user at a time So there wouldn't be a problem with Protel. But if I 
were your employer, I'd definitely want to know if you were doing outside 
work. I'd want to be sure that I was getting full value from you. I 
wouldn't care about you using the license, I'd care about you using your 
own time, perhaps coming to work for me tired, burned out.

If you were only working part-time for me, I'd very easily allow you to do 
outside work, and I'd be happy to be able to assist you by allowing you to 
use the license -- as long as I didn't need it for someone else at the same 
time.

Bottom line is, ethically -- and maybe from a legal standpoint as well, it 
depends on your arrangement with your employer -- you should really let the 
employer know what you are planning to do. The Protel license, as such, is 
not the problem.

Both companies are in a different field of electronics and would not be
competing in any way.
This really has nothing to do with the license. If the two companies were 
direct, cut-throat competitors, there is nothing about the license 
agreement that would prevent you for using it for both companies, the one 
that owns the license and its competitor. Your employer, however, might be 
a tad concerned



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *