Re: PcTech Digest, Vol 1, Issue 14

<snip>
And fines and back interest?

Or are you saying that if BSA came in and said, oh, you're non-compliant,
you have five copies of xxx that you don't have a license for, each copy
costs $100 please pay the software maker $500 everything would be ok?

If the former, ok, if the latter, then every company should simply be
_willing_ to pay for software. IF they ever get audited then they'll pay
what they would have in the first place, if they're not audited then they
don't have to pay for software at all.
</snip>

The BSA would have been able to present a claim for the license fees, and
any penalties they thought they were entitled to.  If the company fails to
pay, then we have procedures in law to collect.  The problem here is not
with the actual enforcement of the licensed intellectual property  rights,
I agree with that, its the method of enforcement and the massive damage
that is done to a company when the extreme tactics are used. There is no
balance between the damage done to Microsoft, and the damage done to Ball,
although I think in the long run Microsoft is the big looser due to the
tactics used.  Using former/current employee complaints as the basis for
these claims is usually dubious at best and often time fraudulent.

In this case it was not shown that a deliberate attempt to defraud anyone
was in place.  It did not deserve the type of treatment received.


Jim Oberholtzer