OT: "unavailable" support files

To prevent direct cloning.

A common answer is also to hide just how ugly the code is, but that's true of all mature code.

Joe Gwinn

I don't follow.

Are they trying to prevent cloning (as in counterfeiting) the software? Or, the proprietary hardware device with which it interacts?

Many such pieces of code won't even run if they can't "find" the correct piece of hardware. So, installing it on your system just eats up disk space with no visible functionality (i.e., you can't even see how it would work *if* the hardware was present).

And, literally copying it (ignoring any visible branding

*in* the application) to use on YOUR "proprietary hardware device" means you've had to mimic the behavior of *their* proprietary hardware device. Completely (otherwise, the copy of the software that you are bundling with your device will crash/get-confused, eventually -- when it encounters a reply from your device that is inconsistent with what the genuine device would have said.

And, ignoring the (illegally hosted) copies that one can typically find with a few minutes on a search engine, all a "cloner" would have to do is BUY a legitimate "proprietary hardware device" -- to serve as a functional model for the proprietary hardware device that *he* will have to develop to mate with the rewatermarked copy of the software that accompanied that purchase.

I.e., "hiding" the original release buys you nothing in that regard. And, likely annoys some of your legitimate customers (who've lost their original install media) as well as costing your support staff time fielding questions from those folks. ("Why can I find all of these UPDATES -- none of which will install without the original release being previously installed -- but not the original release?")

I guess I just don't understand the perceived benefits of doing that.

Should there be a license code, as well, before that unobtanium software is installable? What value to the proprietary hardware device, then?

[I rescued some fingerprint-protected external disk drives many years ago. Of course, the software to *set* the authorization fingerprint was missing. Nope, not on their web site. Phone customer support and he gladly read me a URL over the phone. No "proof of ownership" required -- it likely wouldn't work with any other product on the market! So, we both wasted time because they opted to keep 50MB off of their web server...]

as an example there was a company making USB logic analyzers quickly compatible HW showed up on ebay et.al. for a fraction of the price all with a link and instructions to download the software from the original manufacturer

not having the software easily available for download might not help much but it might make them feel better ;)

and it might be slightly easier to go after a copier of the HW hosting the software illegally, than going after individual users using the software for HW is isn't licensed for

Often both.

In the 1970s, many large platform vendors were open-source but proprietary, exactly because they could not be used on any other platform.

Later, source code was often held tight, for one or more of the following reasons: To protect proprietary algorithms. To avoid educating competitors. To protect purchased code that the vendor had no legal right to publish. To make hacking more difficult. From inertia - in practice, only the top person can authorize such a thing. And although it does happen, there are few incentives to open formerly closed things.

The above confuses multiple very different things, binary portability (where I can run previously compiled and linked code on multiple unlike platforms - example is Windows and Macintosh apps), source-code portability (where I can re-compile and re-link to run on multiple platforms - example is UNIX and its children), and intellectual-property portability (where only ideas are ported from place to place - like so-and-so's algorithm).

Joe Gwinn

If the device is inexpensive, you're often not saving much. Development costs being a significant portion of the sell price (for modest quantities)

And, if its expensive, your customers will likely want something more than a "cheap clone" -- e.g., *support* (in terms of repairs, bug fixes, enhancements, etc.)

Yeah, and you found companies like Storage Tech coming along with the *stated* purpose of making work-alikes of big blue's products. That's a fair bit of investment geared towards tapping into a rich customer base!

I made no mention of cross-platform issues. Nor of source code (availability or portability).

I've solely addressed IP -- it's theft and/or emulation. In the latter case, only patents offer legal protections. In *any* case, litigation is required (to recover losses)

*or* a different design strategy that raises the cost of outright theft to the point where it exceeds the work-alike development strategy.

A large customer opted to ... "implement identically" a system we had designed, some years ago. I.e., purchase the same COTS hardware, copy the algorithms from their *first* purchase of our device, wiring diagrams, etc.

Prosecuting would have been possible -- but not profitable (despite the 6.5 figure pricetag of these boxes).

OTOH, there is nothing that prevents us from refusing to sell our *new* products to you. And, locking them down against such "immoral" (if not illegal) copying. So, your recourse is to develop your own staff to design and maintain those devices -- on which your business now depends.

Is that *really* the market that you wanted to be in? Do you really think you'll have the same vision as folks who've been there for decades before you?

Flip this around from the customer (end user's) point of view: do you want to be reliant on a provider that has boxed themselves into this position? Will the ancillary efforts they've now made essential to their success eventually cause them to fall behind their competitors -- other folks you could be doing business with?

[If you're in the business of making decorative lamps, do you really want to hire a staff to make light bulbs?]

All true, but what has that got to do with the original question.

It's true that you did not mention cross-platform issues, but nonetheless were conflating similar sounding but independent issues.

It's like the difference between free speech and free beer - the word "free" has two meanings, depending on context.

Well, source code is a form of IP, as are algorithms, and so on. And many kinds of IP are protected by being held as a trade secret, and some by a utility patent, and some by a design patent.

But we've drifted from the original question to world peace, so it's time to stop.

Joe Gwinn

What's fun is having over zealous IT critters who run around deleting that type of software. they constantly deleted it for various programmers and the JTAG interfaces. They even tried to remove software written in house that drove test fixtures, clamming that it was a security hazard. This, on air gapped computers. Their excuse on the JTAG software was that we only had two units, so it could only be installed on two computers in spite of these being passed all over the production and engineering departments. The biggest problem we had was coming into work and having to spend an hour reinstalling everything they had deleted, so that we could start doing our jobs. They treated everyone like idiots, in spite of some being former DEC field service techs,

Back in the mid '80s a company cloned the Commodore 1541 floppy disk drive. The EPROMs looked completely different, because several address lines were swapped, as well as some data lines, A simple plug in adapter showed the same compiled code in both products, so they had to pull their clone from the market.