Re: [News] Microsoft Crippleware Patent Rejected, Apple Mocks Own Intelligence
ZnU wrote:
In article <O6OdncfPL6qBvv_UnZ2dnUVZ8u-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Face it : it came as a surprise to you that companies pay by the SEAT to
USE the SW.
Not at all. And by-seat payment is not what was being discussed in this
thread. What was being discussed in this thread is basically rental
software. Any business which uses this method with no benefit in return
(stated by you) deserves to go bump.
Yup. When you're paying for specific releases of software (the way most
consumers do), costs vary unpredictably from year to year, which
businesses generally don't like. They sign up for service agreements
(where they pay the same amount every year and simply have access to
whatever new stuff comes out) specifically to avoid this.
Renting software by the hour doesn't make costs more predictable and
consistent. Quite the opposite, in fact. I would expect it to be a
non-starter in the business world.
I'm not sure Microsoft is dumb enough to actually try to push a scheme
like this, though. Large tech companies file for all sorts of patents on
things they never intend to implement. (The current patent regime
unfortunately encourages this sort of nonsense. It practically requires
it, actually.)
IAWTP. For the benefit of anyone who cares I'm not against rental
software per-se but anyone who rents software year on year with no
benefit (new versions, support etc) is a screaming retard. And to
suggest otherwise is frankly insane.
|
|
|
