posted
As I was writing up that other thread, this idea occurred to me. I can't believe that it's never cropped up before, but I don't recall reading about it.
How can any software company (that includes Apple as well as Microsoft and many others) protect a closed, proprietary file format that may not be accessed by other tools and programs and not be restricting the free flow of information and ideas?
For a somewhat crude analogy, let's say I'm CTO of the Tupperware company. And my department comes up with this wonderful new type of plastic container for storing food. It's incredibly secure, airtight, and will prevent food from going bad even if it's left out in the summer sun. The only thing is, to be able to use that wonderful new sealing technology, a consumer must have this special counter-top tool that will run around the edge to seal or open the container. The Tupperware seal can't be opened without this tool.
Now, I'm a college student, living on-campus. My mother sends me food and goodies on a somewhat regular basis. She spent a couple hours baking these delicious chocolate chip cookies, which she then mailed to me in one of those great new super-airtight Tupperware containers. But when I open the package, I can't eat my cookies because I can't open the container that they're stored in! I have to go out and buy one of those special tools.
If it were any other market aside from the computer industry, wouldn't someone or another immediately start crying about unfair business practices?
Now, I'm not talking about the software applications themselves -- those are most definitely tools, definitive products that have value and copyright protection. I'm talking about the files themselves -- the methods of information exchange. An obvious comparison would be the familiar HTML versus Microsoft's .DOC format.
To finally get around to the purpose, one thing I've read recently is the concern that Microsoft's latest version of Word, for Office 2003, is going to include some kind of massive new security features to try to push their "trustworth computing" agenda. But these features are also going to (most likely) require Word 2003 even to view the protected files. That would mean that, if one of my co-writers for the "Renaissance" fanfic project upgraded to Word '03, I would be totally unable to read the format unless I bought Word '03, too.
Shouldn't there be some sort of legal precedent for this concerning competing, separated telephone networks back when that technology was first coming into widespread use? Or at least, some sort of anti-trust thing concerning ordinary people calling their friends and family? (I'm not talking about Microsoft exclusively, though they are the most obvious offenders.)
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
Mountain Man
Ex-Member
posted
While you lost me about half way though the question, I picked up enough to be able to tell you, that after the reaming that Janet Reno gave Bill Gates, either its legal or somebody got paid off big time.
IP: Logged
posted
Software is not a product in the sense you describe it.
At any rate, one could spend huge amounts of time reading the various works on this subject, but this link might be helpful, to begin with: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
M-Man: I don't think your example really works. So your friend upgrades to Word03, and you can't read his files. So what? Microsoft didn't force him to upgrade, and they aren't forcing you to read his files. Granted, it would normally be bad business practice, since no-one would want to buy a product that will make them incompatible with the rest of the world. But Microsoft has surely learned by know that people will buy their products no matter what's wrong with them. But there's still nothing illegal about producing software that's incompatible with itself. If you don't like their product, don't buy it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
It's not that simple.
1) your average customer is uninformed and will buy the product anyway 2) DRM is being built into everything at the hardware level where it can't be circumvented 3) not using DRM-enabled products means exclusion from the 99% of the world that does
This goes a lot further than a stupid file format protection. Pretty soon I'll have to "borrow" the right to do anything on my own computer. If that isn't illegal, I don't know what is.
posted
The problem is more than something that could potentially be legislated. "Information wants to be free" is not in the constitution that I know of. And there is very little incentive for corporations like Microsoft to make their applications hyper-compatible. The dollar-sign is the sole guiding principle for their decision-making process. The fact that they are the defacto standard for people who want to send text things, spreadsheet-things, presentation things and any other mad variety of roles their inconsistently useful products might be cajoled into fulfilling does not even enter the equation. They must stay on top and if that means engineering (and I use that word very loosely) a new and entirely awful graphic (and other 'object') manipulation technology system which not only sucks dead donkey scrotum but is completely incompatible with anything else, then so be it. And because there's no rule saying they can't or shouldn't do it that way and they are certainly not going to do it themselves, what are we, the non-conformist consumers, to do? Well the trick is we can make/buy/improvise/DL stuff that can work with their file formats. Like Apple's Keynote which will read .ppt files or those crazy Linux fuckers with their Open Office, you know programs that speak Word, PowerPoint and Excel.
It's like the whole Sony "Memory Stick" thing. At first there were two (popular) solid-state memory options: there was Smart Media which was tiny and postage stamp flat and there was Compact-Flash which was tiny and thicker (but could potentially hold more). And then based upon the overwhelming success of Beta, Sony decided that rather than chosing to embrace one of those formats, they'd invent their own. And if they were any company other than Sony this would have been suicidal. So I now have a drive which can read SM, CF, Memory Stick, and the ultra-teensy (if unimaginatively named) Multi-Media Card and Secure Data Cards equal facility, requires no drivers for OSX, is 100% compatible with iPhoto and cost me a little more than 20 bucks. So I mean as a consumer, the worst did not happen for me. I was not forced to buy eight different readers with different variations on the drivers. I am made happy because I can read/write all those formats, but I can't help but think that wouldn't it just have been simpler if everyone could just fucking agree on one format and stick to it.
I've just recently gotten into astronomy and was astonished to learn that nearly all telescopes from an assortment of manufactureres around the globe all use some common eyepiece sizes (.965", 1.25" and 2"). So like even my dad's 8 in.1970s Cave Astrola Newtonian reflector can use the same eyepieces as a brand new Orion 120mm Achromatic refractor and vice versa. I mean that's amazing to me. Like an entirely different philosphy coming from like cars and computers. It's a huge difference. And kind of refreshing really.
And the hardware DRM stuff Cartman is talking about scares me, frankly.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Mind you, those plastic 'corks' are virtually impossible to get out. Corks should be made of cork!!
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Thanks, I think it's kind of glowie (kind of a foggy night) and a bit overbright. My goal is to get at least one semi-decent snap of Mars before it's gone.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
